a multi-disciplinary dialog
Posted by Hanneke van Oosterhout
This still life is about 13 cm wide. I painted everything from life. I drew directly on the panel with charcoal, then pencil. Then I made an under painting in acrylic in one day. I made the over painting oil in two days, one day focusing on the berries, the other on the cup. I think this is a good picture. Please tell me what could be done better. Photographers, have you any insights for me?
I have to confess that I used to think of still-life as the most boring art from. Hanneke van Oosterhout’s paintings have raised my appreciation of ordinary everyday objects, which is nice. But her imaginary still-life drawings add a whole new level of intellectual and artistic interest for me in the still-life genre.
This drawing of a glass of beer is exciting despite being of a mundane topic. I think that working from imagination allows Hanneke to tap into a new level of creativity (sorry for the lousy pun).
Where she is going with this approach, what will be the final result, remains to be seen.
This snail doesn’t seem to like beer so much.
Hanneke van Oosterhout started making imaginary still-life in an accidental way, but now she is beginning to focus on it purposefully. Here is one example she drew in about half an hour.
“It’s great to be able to work so freely,” she said while drawing. “I don’t feel stiff. It’s wonderful because you don’t need to look up [at a real still-life], you just keep on drawing . . .”
Hanneke added, “It’s handy, because you don’t have to buy all that stuff!” meaning the objects. But in fact, the objects she draws are ones that she has in her studio (and her memory, of course). This raises the possibility of combining the imaginary image with real-life detail in an oil painting.
I think that still-life would be of little interest as an art-form if it were a pure reflection of inanimate objects. And yet it is precisely the “still” aspect of this genre that makes it of special interest to painters. The artist has the time to study fine details, or subtleties of composition in a still-life that are more challenging when painting a portrait from life, or a cityscape on a crowded street.
Hanneke van Oosterhout was recently “trapped” in a smoky cafe for hours with nothing to do. Fortunately she had her sketch book with her and she made these two drawings from her imagination.
Something about these drawings pleased her. When she was able to return to her studio the next day, she attempted to construct a real still-life that combined aspects of the two drawings.
This still-life drawing is nice, but it lacks something that we can see in the imaginary drawings.
Comparing the real and imaginary drawings, we can easily see the important differences. The real still-life, like most of Hanneke’s still-life pictures, is a centered composition. It has a conventional feel of balance which is somewhat dull. The imaginary still-life drawings are both unbalanced, with the main weight of the objects skewed somewhat to the right side.
Another difference is evident in the perspective. The vessel in all three drawings is seen directly from the side. To achieve this constraint in the real still-life, the fruit on the table top is also seen from the side. But in the imaginary still-life, the table top and fruit are seen from a different perspective, from above. We seem to look down on the table top while looking at the vessel from the side. This merging of different perspective points lends an interesting quality to the imaginary drawings. When drawing more or less literally from a real still-life, this quality is lost.
Does the real still-life need to be drawn from only one viewpoint?
Are there other fundamental differences between real and imaginary drawings that I have missed?
The typical Painting a Day picture will be a still life. If it is, you can be more or less certain that it will be painted “from life,” as opposed to from the mind. Are the members of the Painting a Day movement inherently unimaginative, or is working from the real objects a fundamental aspect of the genre of still-life painting?
. . .
A successful contemporary Dutch still-life painter once told me, “I have no imagination, I’m only a pair of eyeballs.” Indeed, still-life and painting “from life” are so closely linked, it is reasonable to ask, why would you even want to make a still-life from your mind?
Hanneke van Oosterhout recently drew this imaginary still-life while in a smoky cafe. She was dreaming of her studio. Later she tried to construct a real still-life like it (see Follow the Painting.) Hanneke found that her imaginary still-life had aspects that were difficult to recreate with a real still-life. I find this not at all surprising.
Drawing from imagination is a great way to study your feelings about a topic. It makes sense that the still-life of the mind would be something special, something difficult to recreate in the world. Have you ever made an imaginary still-life? Did you find it had something that made it different from any real-world still-life?
