Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
When is a still life not a still life?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
On another site, an artist posted a lovely still life painting and, partway down the comment thread, mentioned that he had used a photographic source (taken by another person, but that's not the hair I'm splitting here).
It didn't really detract from the painting, but it got me thinking.
First, am I being unduly traditionalist and old-fashioned in insisting that still life should be from, well, life? Life that is still - or, to put it unambiguously, inanimate objects that exist in front of you when you are creating an image of them.
I always thought that that was the whole (starting) point of still life - to practice making a two dimensional image of a three dimensional object.
And second, if you're really pedantic (and I can be if I want to be!), then maybe a photograph - any photograph is still life. It doesn't move, after all...