Still life 1924

Editor: We're looking at Konstantin Bogaevsky's "Still Life" from 1924. It looks like it’s created with watercolor and oil painting. It gives me such a somber and intimate feel, what jumps out at you? Curator: The subdued palette definitely contributes to the mood, but I'm also interested in how this work sits within the context of the Russian avant-garde movement. Bogaevsky positions a traditional subject—still life—within a period defined by revolutionary change. Considering the socio-political upheaval happening at the time, what do these seemingly simple objects represent? Is this an intentional look at simpler times through the depiction of household objects, or perhaps just an exercise? Editor: Hmmm, so maybe this traditional form actually acts as commentary on society. Now I’m thinking about it more like nostalgia or resistance against the new order! The muted colours and commonplace objects seem deliberate now. But why still life, though? Curator: The Russian avant-garde embraced diverse media and subjects. Bogaevsky using still life, might be referencing past traditions in order to make a statement about their relevance—or irrelevance. Are these items from his home? Objects from the ruling class he rejects? Was his personal collection an implicit statement of taste and social positioning? How does the choice of objects contribute to a possible political reading? Editor: I hadn’t thought about the items representing wealth, class or even family history. Thanks to your background, now I see it goes beyond just a simple, sombre image! Curator: It’s about understanding how artists negotiate their place within historical and political currents. Still life can offer such a rich territory to investigate an artist’s social and artistic position, as well as that of the art world.