- This topic is empty.
What is still life and what is not still life
-
Hi guys,
can anybody answer a question, what is and is not classed as still life, is it just a group of object neatly stacked together or is it anything that doesn’t move such as a road sign.
Thanks for reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still_life_photography” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
my opinion and understanding of still life is that it should be of inanimate objects, the idea of still life being a layout of food or such like on a table comes to us from painters who would show their mastery of composition and lighting by painting such scenes (there’s a beautiful painting in national gallery of dead pheasants after a hunt that i like but don’t remember the artists name), these kind of paintings would originally have been done to hang in restaurants and bars in ye olden days. I myself think that modern photographic still life should be based around the concept of “showing off” the photographers abilities in lighting and composition, both of the wider framing and how they arrange the elements being photographed, I personally think that photo’s of traffic signs or lampposts would not be considered as still life as there is usually to many aspects out of the photographers control in composing the element of the framing, unless your able to physically move the road sign or walls or mountains or any number of things within the frame to get the composition you want and that’s before the lighting considerations come in to play. All my own opinion of course so feel free to ignore it and take still life to be what you want it to be. similar arguments can be made about different types of photography, the argument over what constitutes street photography is one area that springs to mind, Kiss by the Hotel de Ville by Robert Doisneau is considered a great moment in street photography by many but there are some who discount it as it was a staged shot. Interesting question you’ve posed.
Yep, its not street lamps or something thats just stopped. Good explanations from the lads there.
This question keeps coming up-
Pitmatic has just mentioned that the forum heading might be adding to the ambiguity,
as it simply reads ‘Photographs of inanimate objects’.So, there is perhaps a need to come up with a better one-liner-
I’ve come up with-‘Considered assemblages of arranged, composed and lit objects or groups of objects.’
Not complete either, but perhaps closer to the spirit of what photographers who work within the genre might start out with-
maybe everyone should have a go at a definition…I’ve looked at a lot of still lifes, and these two photographers produce good work-
Christopher Broadbent- I’ve been fortunate to be able to read some of his thoughts on how he approaches his work,
and it’s very illuminating- and simple-
this page shows some of his personal studies-http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Halfplate.html
and Kevin Best, who photographs in the style of the Dutch Masters.
http://bestshots.com.au/flash/home_splash.html
The genre is not confined to these styles,
but most successful pictures within the genre show a similar level of ambition,
and I think it’s obvious that there is a level of perfection sought,
if not always attained…Thanks JB.
Pitmatic is correct in that its confusing.
I’ve updated the description for the Still Life forum to your suggestion JB. Hopefully
it’ll help everyone’s future posts.Thanks!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
