As much of the New Mexico landscape has inspired me for so many years, I have always maintained an interest in painting still life. By choosing objects that might otherwise appear ordinary (even mundane), I have two intentions:

First, though we see them and take for granted their utility, so many of the objects surrounding us in our everyday lives possess an inherent formal beauty. This, of course, is a duality as old as ancient cave painting or clay pots. Though less ancient, one of the intriguing aspects of still life painting is that it has always heightened an awareness of these objects’ formal qualities, their shape, color, and materiality. A clay pot, represented in a still life painting, has no “utilitarian” function. It will hold nothing but our imagination. What the still life painting does accomplish, however, is to call attention to the “form” of this pot, how, for instance, it has evolved to serve its utilitarian function more effectively and efficiently.

What follows from this, of course, is the question of whether a painting- in any genre- has its own “utilitarian” function. That is, does a still-life painting serve a “utilitarian” function? By bringing us to a heightened awareness of an object’s form, is this awareness “utilitarian”? Is the recognition of beauty, which nourishes the human soul, as necessary to our survival as the creation of a pot that holds water? This question, going back at least as far as Plato, is, for me, still engaging and still incredibly relevant.

Again, as with my landscapes, still life painting has provided me the opportunity to better appreciate a number of painting’s essential elements, especially composition and color. While I am currently absorbed in a more abstract style, I’m certain that my practice of still life will re-emerge and will benefit from what I’ve learned in my most recent abstract painting.