This essay will explore themes and symbolism expressed in the still life photography of Laura Letinsky. This will focus largely on ‘Untitled #1, 2008′ (fig. 1) and the series it is part of: ‘The Dog and The Wolf. In particular, it will explore the influence of Dutch classical painters, and how Letinsky both incorporates and contrasts these influences within her practice and symbolism. It will also consider the social connotations of the photography, and issues around the time that Letinsky may be addressing.
The similarities and differences between her work and the images of other photographers will also be explored, while also observing how Letinsky has constructed her images in ways to mould the viewer’s emotions and understanding towards and about them. Letinsky began making photographs inspired by and in response to Dutch-Flemish painters in 1997, when she began taking experimental images while working on her earlier portraiture series.
The photographs she captured of the remains of meals became an area that she has explored thoroughly throughout many projects and years, focusing on what remains and “changing what is typically overlooked into something beautiful. ” (Letinsky, n. d. ). Upon looking at the process used when making ‘The Dog and The Wolf, the influence of these paintings becomes stronger and more apparent. The photographs are taken using extremely long exposures, often overnight, in order to capture the dusk light entirely.
This gives the photographs a soft yet vibrant appearance that creates an “otherworldly place in which ordinary objects take on a melancholic cast. ” (Miller, 2012). Using a longer exposure reflects and simulates the length of time it would take for a classical painter to perfect a painting; using patience to create the desired image, rather than recreating the lighting artificially and capturing the scene instantly in a snapshot exposure. Using a long exposure also separates this series from the ones before, giving it a new and unique appearance.
Shooting all of the images for this series at dusk gives them a uniformity that ensures that they link to one another. This makes the series stronger as a set. The subjects of Letinsky’s still life photographs also connect strongly with the classical paintings that she is inspired by. Food and flowers are the main components in these images, although they are used in different ways between the two mediums. Throughout Western history, the rich and people of high social standing have commissioned still life paintings of exotic and expensive items.
These compositions, frequently including food and perishable items, displayed the owner’s wealth and status. However, they also made a statement about the country’s power, showing items from different lands, that would have been conquered or negotiated with in order to acquire them. “As the nation emerged as a powerful mercantile force, Dutch artists filled their canvases with the staples and luxuries of the trades they dominated – Dutch cheese, French wine, Baltic grain, South American tobacco, and Asian porcelain and pepper. (Peabody Essex Museum, 2011)
While Letinsky maintains the same subject matter, the compositions are vastly different. The paintings show the food before consumption, when it appears most appetising and conventionally beautiful. Capturing fresh objects emphasises the owner’s wealth and makes the composition look more desirable and appealing. A clear example of this is Jan Davidsz de Heem’s ‘Still Life with a Glass and Oysters’ (Fig. 2). The food shown is prepared and ready for consumption. Everything included is free of imperfections, because that is how it is believed it should be.
In stark contrast, Letinsky captures scenes after the meal has been consumed, showing what is left behind. Although Letinsky states that this is to capture unconventional beauty, there are other reasons and interpretations behind these photographs. In the classical paintings, the food displayed would have been eaten fully and no waste would have been left due to the large costs involved in acquiring each item. Photographing the waste left behind could be interpreted as the modern way of displaying wealth.
Since most foods are now affordable and accessible to the masses, being able to buy more than enough, to the point it becomes wasted, is the new sign of wealth, in comparison to the times in which the paintings were made. Although this may not have been Letinsky’s intention when creating the images, food wastage had been steadily increasing for many years before the ges were created. Cheap prices had created a modern habit of overbuying, that then led to greater excess. In 2012, just four years after ‘The Dog and The Wolf series was created, the annual cost of food waste for a nuclear family in America was $1,365 to $2,275 (Gunders, 2012).
Although this may not have been the interpretation that Letinsky aimed to create, there are hints that she has considered a similar idea. The name of the series: ‘The Dog and The Wolf not only refers to the French phrase alluding to twilight, but is an Aesop fable. In the fable a house-dog is leading a starving wolf to its home for food. During the journey the wolf realises that the dog has given up its freedom for the promise of regular food and decides to leave, announcing that it is “better [to] starve free than be a fat slave” (Aesop, 2015).
By using this title Letinsky is making a statement about the people whose presence is alluded to within the image, and society and its values as a whole. Photographing leftover food displays that the recipients had more than enough, and that they are the “fat slave”. While this is not intended literally, the views she is implying about society are strong and clear. Through the choice of title, Letinsky is suggesting that the people within Western society have become “slaves” to marketing, companies, and the idea of material possession.
Rather than buying only what is necessary, the public is led to elieve that more is better by the advertisements of companies that stand to gain from this ideal. This links closely to the idea that having enough to waste is the new mark of wealth. Letinsky has also suggested this idea by making the objects look beautiful and desirable, much as an advertisement would. Around the same time Letinsky was creating her still life photographs, Richard Kuiper was also producing images inspired by classical Dutch paintings. In his interpretations he is closely copying specific paintings, using only plastic items.
His goal with the series is to reflect how unnecessarily overused the material is, in the hopes that it will inspire the viewer to use less “before it takes over completely. ” (Kordic, n. d. ). Both Letinsky and Kuiper have used their images to make a statement about society in an attempt to address a specific issue, whether it has been done openly or covertly. There are however, despite their shared inspiration, great differences between the two photographers. While Kuiper has chosen to recreate paintings as closely as possible, Letinsky has made her images in a more open and subtle way.
The technique and small parts of the style are similar to the paintings she takes inspiration from, however, she allows her photographs to take on her own unique style. Visually, one of the largest ways Letinsky differs from her Dutch inspirations is the way in which she composes her images. The photographs contain vastly larger areas of white, and the areas occupied by objects are often kept small. This style adds weight and significance to the subjects, as though the photographer feels that they hold great importance.
Within the ‘The Dog and The Wolf series these compositional choices are upheld throughout, excluding ‘Untitled #1’ which has subtle differences. The objects included, especially the balloons and candles, give a clearer indication of the narrative behind the photo. This is unusual as the other images give no suggestion of a place or time, only showing the remains of what had once been without including context. The contents of ‘Untitled #1’ give a strong suggestion that the photograph is capturing the remains of a birthday party, giving the viewer more clues towards a narrative.
The viewer is invited to imagine the party, the attendees, and what happened; something that is difficult to do with Letinsky’s other photographs due to their lack of contextual clues. This invitation is further reinforced by Letinsky’s inclusion of a large section of the background. This empty space eludes to a strong bodily presence; a suggestion that someone is or has been there. Letinsky has said in interviews that she aims to create this presence within her photographs, however it is regularly more subtle, only suggested by the fact that the food has been consumed.
