We started by talking about the boring, dead, and false idea of plenty that the Dutch still life school pioneered. When you take into account that the hens, fruits, and flowers they were painting would have decomposed beyond recognition before they finished the painting, you wonder about the authenticity of these so-called "real" paintings (art = artifice . . . when is it every, really, about the truth lol). Also, it's interesting to see the limitations of copying from a camera obscura in the out of whack perspectives and other technical problems said copying produced.
Next we skipped ahead to Morandi who's work I enjoy. The idea of using "his bottles" as a method of working and an excuse for which a painting can be made is a potent one: interest in the banal. I also love the modernist bent with positive/negative relationships and greyscales! (I love greys!)
We skipped even further to Rosenquist (who is not necessarily a still life painter) who uses objects and fractured space to create layers of meaning.
A new (to me) artist is Neo Rauch. He creates a pseudo-narrative with his objects: how the objects relate to each other in the painting is what the painting is about.
|First hit :)|