STILL-LIFE
Its comparative difficulty--Its varieties--Its limitations.
Right through the degrees of the art of the painter till we reach
still-life, the difficulty in producing the art is in proportion to the
general beauty therein, but in the case of still-life the object is much
less readily gained than in simple landscape which is on a higher level
in painting. The causes of this apparent anomaly appear to be as
follows:--Firstly in miniature painting one does not expect such close
resemblance to nature as in still-life which usually represents things
in their natural size: secondly, in still-life the relative position of
the parts can never be such as to appear novel, whereas in landscape
their position is always more or less unexpected: thirdly, in still-life
the colours are practically fixed, for the painter cannot depart from
the limited variety of tints commonly connected with the objects
indicated, while in landscape the colouring may vary almost indefinitely
from sun effects without appearing to depart from nature.
The beauty in still-life paintings may arise from several causes,
namely, the pleasure experienced from the excellence of the imitation;
the harmony of tones; the beauty of the things imitated; the association
of ideas; and the pleasure derived from the acquisition of knowledge.
Aristotle seemed to think this last one of the principal reasons for our
appreciation of the painter's work, though he agreed that the better the
imitation, the greater the pleasure to the observer. The argument
appears to apply particularly to the lower forms of life because in
nature they are not often closely examined. A cauliflower for instance
may be seen a thousand times by one who would not carefully note its
structure, but if he see an imitation of it painted by a good artist,
his astonishment at the excellence of the imitation might cause him to
observe the representation closely, and learn much about the vegetable
which he did not know before. In this way the information gained would
add to his pleasure.
As in landscape, from the absence of abstract qualities from the things
represented, and since the position of the signs may be indefinitely
varied without a sense of incongruity resulting, there can be no ideal
in still-life, and so the painter cannot pass beyond experience without
achieving the abnormal.
The painter of still-life has the choice of four kinds of imitation,
namely, the representation of products of nature which are in themselves
beautiful, as roses and fine plumaged birds; the imitation of products
of human industry which are in themselves beautiful, as sculptured plate
or fine porcelain; the representation of natural and manual products
which in themselves are neither beautiful nor displeasing, but interest
from association of ideas, as certain fruits, books, and musical
instruments; and the imitation of things which in themselves are not
pleasing to the sight, as dead game, kitchen utensils, and so on.
Obviously the artist may assort any two or more of these varieties in
the same picture. He may also associate them with life, but here he is
met with a grave difficulty which goes to the very root of art. If two
forms, not being merely accessories, are associated together in a
design, the lower form must necessarily be subordinated, otherwise the
mind of the observer will be disturbed by the apparent double objective.
A live dog or other animal in a still-life composition will immediately
attract the eye of the observer, drawing off his attention from the
inanimate objects represented, which will consequently thereafter lose
much of their interest. The presence of a man is still worse. Not only
is it natural and inevitable that a human being should take precedence
of whatever is inanimate in a work of art, but in the case of
still-life, where he is painted of natural size, he must necessarily
overshadow everything else in the picture. Further, his own
representation is much injured because the surroundings exercise a
disconcerting influence. Even with the human figures of such a work
executed by a painter of the first rank, they are quite
uninteresting.[a]
[a] See still-life pictures at the Hague and Vienna Museums by
Van Dyck and Snyders.
Beautiful products of nature such as brilliant flowers and butterflies,
cannot be imitated so well that the representations appear as beautiful
as the things themselves, and so are unsuited as entire subjects for
paintings, for we are usually well acquainted with these things, and
consciously or unconsciously recognize the inferiority of the imitation.
The greatest flower painters have therefore wisely refrained from
introducing into their works more than a few fine roses or similar
blooms. The presence of many less beautiful flowers in which the
imitation is, or appears to be, more pleasing than the natural forms,
neutralizes or overcomes the effect of the inferior imitation of the
more beautiful. In fact the extent to which natural products which are
necessarily more beautiful than the imitations, may be used in painting,
except as incidentals, is very limited. They cannot appropriately be
used at all on walls and curtains where they continually cross the
vision, for they would there quickly tire owing to the involuntary
dissatisfaction with the representation. The Japanese, whose whole art
of painting was for centuries concentrated upon light internal
decoration, rightly discard from this form of art all natural products
which are necessarily superior to the imitations, and confine their
attention to those signs which, while being actually more beautiful,
when closely seen, than the imitations, do not appear to be so in nature
where they are usually observed at some distance from the eye. Thus,
waterfowl of various kinds, small birds of the hedges, storks, herons,
branches of fruit blossoms, light trees and vegetation, are infinitely
preferable to the more beautiful products for purely decorative
purposes. A common pigeon with an added bright feather, is better on a
wall or screen than the most brilliant pheasant, for in the one case the
representation appears above ordinary experience, and in the other case,
below it.
The decorative artist then is at liberty to enhance the beauty of his
signs, but not to take for them things which are commonly observed in
nature, and whose beauty he cannot equal. But there should be no wide
divergence between the natural beauty and the art, and nothing which in
itself is unpleasing is suitable for decoration. It may be introduced in
a hanging picture, because here a sense of beauty may be derived from
the excellence of the imitation, as in the case of a dead hare or a
basket of vegetables; but in pure decoration the effect is general and
not particular, and so the imitation yields no beauty apart from that of
the thing imitated.