Talk:Still life

Image copyright problem with Image:Violcand.jpg

The image Image:Violcand.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above problem solved..Modernist (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objects not People

Still life is typhically with no people in it. In this article looks like there are quite a few groups of people depicted. That is not really still life. Hafspajen (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but there were several images, some of which were supported by sourced text, that demonstrated the use of still life within domestic scenes--the use of still life in broader figure-inclusive compositions is discussed in the article. I don't think there was anything inherently wrong with that, and the article benefited from the inclusion of the Velazquez 'bodegon' and Carracci's butcher shop. JNW (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think so, let's put it back, than. Hafspajen (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly this article has become boring - just flowers and fruit?...Modernist (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Well, I can live on Chardin and Cezanne's flowers and fruit forever. JNW (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also some Trompe l´oeil and food and plates. But uneven galleries give me the creeps Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 works well with small screens; either add or subtract. I had it at 3 and more images make for a more interesting article...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Put back your Owl and a Young Hare and some mice Hafspajen (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early still-life grew out of details of figure subjects, then figure subjects overwhelmed by still-life, especially in the Flemish tradition, and we don't have enough of these in the article. Nor enough dead animals. Lots of the images are low quality. The whole thing needs going over. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And live animals, as opposed to dead ones, are not normally considered as "still life". Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately, no living things are still life at all, by definition. La natura morta means exactly dead nature (or not living nature). But since you did have both living people (right now) and before living animals according to this citation (from the article):

The development of oil painting technique by Jan van Eyck and other Northern European artists made it possible to paint everyday objects in this hyper-realistic fashion, owing to the slow drying, mixing, and layering qualities of oil colors.[11] Among the first to break free of religious meaning were Leonardo da Vinci, who created watercolor studies of fruit (around 1495) as part of his restless examination of nature, and Albrecht Dürer who also made precise drawings of flora and fauna.[12]

, thought that it was a kind of presentation of the begining of the still life or the process: Albrecht Dürer who also made precise drawings of flora and fauna.

At my art classes still life studies were allways objects and fruits, no people, ever. But whatewer you do, don't make uneven galleries and mixed picture sizes. Uneven galleries still give me the creeps. Hafspajen (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am likely to be working on this for some time, so they may be uneven for a while, but I agree they should be tidy when complete. Living plants (and live oysters if we're being pedantic) are I think included, if only on the margin of landscape/botanical illustration. I'll check if all of Durer's animals were dead - if so that should be changed. As the article (now) says, pictures mixing still life with figures were very important in the early history, and need to be covered. We still need more dead animals - Jean-Baptiste Oudry is not even mentioned at present. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Durer's animals were not dead Hafspajen (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The distinction is somewhat artificial in many cases, as "live" animals such as birds were modelled from dead ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks dead enough.... But the rabbit had his ears upright. Hafspajen (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locations.

I definitely do not agree that locations are not needed. It gives one information about where the work can be seen, and looking at a picture live it is decisively NOT the same thing as any good or bad copy. If one knows where the artwork is than it is easy to visit the museum, when there. Othervise is difficult to find out where the artwork is. And if it is already is given in an article, it is unnecessary to remove it, but one oughtn't to remove things on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hafspajen (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAMOS does say it isn't needed. The information is always on the image page if people want it. Too many art articles give all these details instead of any comment on the image and its relevance. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added

This is not exactly a representative Still life illustration, it is a garland painter; while Ambrosius Bosschaert was removed. It should be added back .

Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PICTURE

THIS is a bad quality scan, green and it sticks out from the other paintings, it should not be used. And before doing major changes to a stable article please discuss it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engvar

On a quick look (searching for "colour" vs "color"), I can't see any ENGvar before this edit in 2008, when the article was already a fair size. Per WP:ENGVAR it should retain British English in the absence of a discussion changing this. I propose to make the changes unless anyone objects. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Osias Beert the Elder - Dishes with Oysters, Fruit, and Wine - Google Art Project.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Osias Beert the Elder - Dishes with Oysters, Fruit, and Wine - Google Art Project.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 1, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-01-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A still life is a work of art depicting inanimate subject matter, typically either natural things such as flowers, dead animals, food, rocks or shells, or man-made objects. As a genre, still-life painting began with Netherlandish painting in the 16th and 17th centuries. The wealthy Dutch Empire's trade enabled the importation of spices, sugar and exotic fruits into the country, and new ingredients such as dates, rice, cinnamon, ginger, nuts, and saffron became available. This oil-on-panel still life from the 1620s by the Flemish artist Osias Beert is entitled Dishes with Oysters, Fruit, and Wine, and includes a rare early depiction of sugar in art. The painting now hangs in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Painting credit: Osias Beert

Recently featured:

Condescending tone?

The first few paragraphs have several examples of a seemingly condescending tone, both towards still life painting in comparison to other genres as well as to scientific illustration, which are not cited and unsuited to an encyclopedia. 71.190.192.194 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]