Beauty, filth, violence and death: why still life art is more subversive than you think

Once dismissed as a lesser art form, the still life has been reinvented as a radical form of expression, as a thrilling new show makes clear

Still life is the lowest form of art. So declared the French Academy when it established its Hierarchy of Genres in the 17th century. Historical scenes and portraiture were the noblest genres, whereas landscapes and still lifes were considered lowly. According to the art institute, biblical frescoes required a& higher level of mastery; an inanimate fruit bowl, or a bunch of wilting flowers? Anybody could paint those.

This categorisation shaped the perception of still life as a marginal genre. Four centuries on, the discourse has pivoted. “The careful and meticulous depiction of objects has always been an element of art, but generally this was something you saw in the backdrop of a religious scene or a portrait,” says Melanie Vandenbrouck, chief curator at Pallant House Gallery in Chichester. This month, the Chichester museum will present a comprehensive survey of around 150 still lifes made in Britain. Chronologically charting its development, the exhibition presents it as a fundamental genre of British art, one that has historically grappled with the universal human experiences of love and grief, but also provided a radical commentary on gender inequality, the climate crisis and war.