The still life genre once considered the lowest
of art forms has, of course, since been redeemed
by the work of among others, Chardin, Cezanne
and the Cubists. It comes into its own when
used as a basis for compositional experimentation,
where any more spectacular subject matter might
be a distraction to the calm exploration of the
relationship of objects.
Although this has been a consideration in my
work for some years, it became clear that absolute
neutrality is unlikely. In fact the simple combinations
of trivial and more extravagant objects ( shells,
flowers etc) soon trigger all sorts of resonances.
And once more complex forms are included, an
imaginative narrative takes hold. Symbols may
speed up this process as in the momento mori of
the 17th Century.
(Two paintings by Vermeer for example, ‘A Woman
Reading a Letter’ 1663 and ‘ A Lady with a Lute’
1662-3 were instructional and inspirational in
their employment of dynamic negative space and
Mondrian–like abstraction, yet quietly pregnant
with meaning right across their surfaces).
The paradox of looking at painting is that
although its impact can be absorbed with
a glance, its proper experience may only be
constituted slowly. A continuing reference point
is the ‘all-over’ compositions of Pieter Breughel.
Their changes of focus are intended to keep the
eye scanning, bagatelle like and in perpetual
motion, creating a playful counter-point.
Indeed the whole method of painting reveals
itself over time, constantly reacting and
responding to its own making, the result being
often unintended and surprising.
In addition to this sense of unforeseen outcomes,
it should be noted that these paintings are not
generally speaking made from life but from things
previously seen or invented. The composition, as
in music, predominates.
Brian Sayers, February 2025
