step further by suggesting that “dead” or inanimate objects are the main focus in such works, although in
fact they often included live animals. Paintings of animals enjoyed a status similar to that of still lifes.
Oudry specialized in hunting scenes on a grand scale that contained dog and horse portraits; on animal
portraits based on the royal menagerie; and on luxurious buffet scenes, all of which established a
“superior” type of painting within the “lower” genres (Bailey, 2007, 6, 10, 16–17). In the eighteenth
century, still life remained a relatively lowly genre due to its association (as with many landscapes) with
close copying of real objects and to the relatively limited scope it was felt to offer an artist’s powers of
invention and imagination. Norman Bryson (1990, 175) has described it as the “mechanical other” to
history painting, as it draws attention to technique rather than invention and particular objects rather than
general messages for humankind. As with landscapes, there were several subgenres, from the humble to
the slightly grander, and artists were often identified specifically as practitioners of these. Subgenres
included scenes of meal preparation, fruit and flowers, kitchen scenes, studies of trophies of the hunt,
“attributes” (representative objects) of the arts and sciences, grand buffets and “vanitas” images in which
traditional symbols of mortality such as skulls, wasting flesh and wilting flowers represent the vanity of
human aspirations. Seventeenthcentury artists had practiced successfully all of these subgenres.
Still life paintings such as those representing the attributes of the arts and sciences, that conveyed serious
allegorical messages or that portrayed objects from more lavish or erudite lifestyles, claimed implicitly a
higher status. In the middle of the century, however, Chardin, who also made paintings of these kinds,
tackled more modest assemblages of objects that were perceived by many critics to convey “nature
itself,” largely due to the artist’s skill in harmonizing light and color as effectively as the “light of the sun”
(Diderot, 1995a, 60). His work enhanced the status of “technique,” which was felt capable of conferring
in its own right a certain moral dignity. “Technique” is particularly emphasized in discussions of still lifes
across all periods, as the genre is often seen to represent (if indirectly) the techniques used by the
craftsmen who made the physical objects it depicts. This is perhaps most obvious in representations of
highend luxury goods such as chased silver, but is also apparent in, for example, the representation of
porcelain.
Still life painters such as Chardin were accepted into the Académie royale as practitioners of their own
(sub)genre, although Chardin himself moved on to genre painting for a while, reportedly having been
taunted by the portrait artist JacquesAndréJoseph Aved (1702–1766) by the comment that it was much
easier to paint a “saveloy sausage” (which Chardin was at the time painting on a chimneyscreen) than
the human figure (Scott, 2003, 90). In 1757, Chardin was granted living quarters at the Louvre, a
distinctive honor at the time, and he eventually took on during the period 1761–1774 the relatively
prestigious role of picture hanger at the Salons. This was a position of some influence since he could
determine the exact position and attention drawn to works painted by his peers.
Chardin’s career was exceptional for an artist working within this genre and was boosted by critical
acclaim based on an acknowledgment that the artist’s work resonated so well with contemporary interest
in the moral virtue of following nature as opposed to the mannerism and lack of observation of nature
increasingly identified in “high” art. There was also a healthy interest, for much of his career, from
buyers, who ranged from newly rich members of the middle classes to the aristocracy and to royal buyers
such as Frederick the Great of Prussia (reigned 1740–1786) and Catherine the Great of Russia (reigned
1762–1796). Royal and aristocratic buyers derived some moral capital from buying his genre paintings of
“everyday life,” on which he focused his attention in the middle part of his career. They were also
attracted to his still life paintings. In general, however, still life paintings paid much less well than history
paintings or portraits, and were often commissioned, like landscapes, for decorative use (Schnapper,
2000, 58). Their status suffered further as the demand for works with explicit human interest capable of
arousing moral emotion increased. In 1763, the art critic CharlesJoseph Mathon de la Cour (1738–