Objects on a Table: Harmonious Disarray in Art and Literature

by Guy Davenport

This collection of four essays on the art of the still life begins with a look back to pictures of meals painted on the walls of Egyptian tombs--as the author points out, the soul could eat. Davenport's meditations on the still life dip into the full history of this art form, touching on neolithic cave paintings, the Dutch masters, Cezanne, Van Gogh, even photography and the collage.

Genres: Art, Literature, Nonfiction, Essays, Literary Criticism

136 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Jonfaith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Poe's invention of the neurasthenic and hypersensitive Roderick Usher is both a refinement of a melancholy temperament studied from Aristotle to Robert Burton and the genesis of a type, the man of abnormally acute senses, sensitivity and sensibilities. He has no body; he is all head.

This last week felt as if I was in exile. My normal responsibilities had been cordoned off by necessity and I attempted to make the best of it. My thoughts kept drifting to pursue another oversized novel. This tendency was being fed by watching (far too much) of the Leaf by Leaf YouTube channel. Hourly my focus would drift and I wasn't where I wanted to commit. Sending money to an expat in Slovenia will undoubtedly correct this sinuous drift, but for the immediate endeavor I thought I'd sift through further works of criticism. Each night I have been reading entries from Cultural Amnesia by Clive James but I haven't found the will for an open throttle reread.

I am glad I went in this direction. Guy Davenport simply dazzles me. I would be inclined to reread the correspondence between he and Hugh Kenner.

This work is based on a series of lectures regarding the still life as a point of departure. As is the case with most of Davenport, the focus expands paragraph by paragraph and the reader is all the richer for the experience.

[Shawn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am neither an academic, nor am I a lowest-common denominator type. Books like this remind me that most of the crowing about "elites", "ivory towers", "dead classicism", etc, etc, is hot air. I don't remember how or why I first got this book but, having recently borrowed it back from a good friend, I re-read the whole thing in a week, savoring each of these exquisite essays that theorize about still-life painting, what it means, what it communicates, what it contains. Davenport, an erudite and creative mind, makes connections that only a classically trained, well-read person could make, and we are all the better for it.

What do the apple and pear represent, why do they appear together and how did Picasso unite them in the onion? What was so special about the quality of the light in the city of Turin that impressed Nietzsche, and why does that light haunt the paintings of De Chirico? What does the bust of a man's (specific or general) head, appearing in many well-appointed still-lives of dens and rooms (and their equivalent in literature) mean to us and how can one draw a line in them from Edgar Allan Poe to Sherlock Holmes, illuminating how Poe meant to fuse 3 different views of the world? What secrets are hidden in the names of famous detectives (Holmes, Maigret, Dupin, Whimsey, Thorndyke)? What does the basket of summer fruit, an offering to God, mean when it is painted?

If any of those questions sound interesting, seek out this slim volume. Me, I intend to read more of Davenport's essays at the first opportunity.

[Santiago Ramírez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es sorprendente el análisis que hila con un autor tras otro, símbolos, figuras, pinturas y literatura a partir de la naturaleza muerta. La importancia de observar con sorpresa, como si nunca hubiéramos visto un objeto.

[Max Nemtsov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Нашелся еще один (на самом деле — не один) непрочтенный Давенпорт — четыре фантазии-медитации о натюрмортах (и, понятно, не только). Блистательные, как все у него — я не знаю исключений. Это продолжение «Географии воображения», которую лучше впитывать по-чуть-чуть и да, с разрывами во много лет.

Среди прочего в этой небольшой элегантной книжке нам рассказывают, в чем корни нынешней одержимости фудпорном (Давенпорт не знал этого слова), который и есть выродившийся до инстаграмма жанр натюрморта, без символических глубинных пластов, разумеется, — он показывает только узколобость авторов ням-ням-фотографий и их тягу к принесению жертв столь же выродившимся богам общинного признания: смотрите, я такой(-ая) же, как все, приличный человек, мой алтарь выглядит пристойно. Фудпорн — как воскресная церковь в заскорузлом иудео-христианском обществе. На территориях ръяз-ктулхуры — легкая вариация: на официозно-идеологическом плане иконостасы политбюро сменились портретами кремлевской банды в церквях со свечками, а остальное народонаселение постит изображения мисок с пайками. Давенпорт наверняка оценил бы эволюцию.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

in one of the funnier bursts of nervous self-belittlement i've encountered lately, davenport claims in his introduction to his own work that "however unprofessional and even deplorable they [his essays:] will appear to some scholars, they may be of interest to the common reader and intelligent children."
well then call me a common reader, for i find these essays and the varied learning behind them charming.

[Emilio Bazaldúa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vivaz.
Increíble la capacidad que Davenport tiene para conectar ideas y, mejor aún, encontrarlas en múltiples obras artístico-culturales de la historia [canónica europea].
En general el texto es ameno e interesante, aunque una pequeña (gran) impresión propia es que para el último capítulo ha tenido consideración de sobra para con Joyce, llenándolo de los típicos adjetivos apoteósicos de su obra que, más que ensalzarlo, lo ensucian y extenúan.

[Adolfo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Un libro que hace honor a su subtitulo; Desorden armonioso en arte y literatura. Entre el desorden tiene paisajes que valen la pena absorberlos.

[Darío Carrillo · Rating 3 out of 5]

«Y cuando el alumno escéptico desde el fondo del aula pregunta si Keats sabía eso, y si se lo propuso, debemos responder que no, pero que el lenguaje lo sabía por él, transmitiendo el significado del mismo modo en que los genes transmiten información de un organismo a otro». Guy Davenport