This painting exemplifies the notion of Baroque excess. The multiplicity of elements present in the painting leads the eyes to initially wander all over in an attempt to draw connections between the different components. Faced with the overwhelming surplus of corpses amid fruits and vegetables—death and life—, roosters fighting, a cat that blends in with the background so much so that we can only see its eyes, a vendor, a pick-pocketing youngster who reminds us of picaresque narratives, doves flying away, one wonders: what exactly am I looking at? It’s almost as if we are looking at everything yet at nothing at the same time. The elements on their own may have a particular meaning, peacocks, for example, were associated with vanity and pride, while deers were representative of purity of heart. But what do these elements tell us when they are all laid out on one table? In “The Work of the Gaze”, Christine Buci-Glucksmann ponders on the “persistent question of the Baroque: can we think simultaneously of emptiness and wholeness” (153). I believe this is exactly the challenge we are faced with here and the main polarity at work. Something that may aid our thinking regarding the wholeness-emptiness dichotomy, is Maravall’s assertion that “despite its apparent and violent naturalism, what the baroque offers us never remains a pure and simple realism” (257). Snyder’s still life exemplifies this in that, by definition, still lifes suggest a certain staging, but in this particular painting such staging is conjugated with a sense of naturalness. Animal bodies are hung from high up, such as the deer, while others make way their way down, off the table and towards the floor, in a natural gravitational movement. I think that it is possible that all elements retain their assigned connotation and we may indeed approach them in this way, but another possibility is for
This painting exemplifies the notion of Baroque excess. The multiplicity of elements present in the painting leads the eyes to initially wander all over in an attempt to draw connections between the different components. Faced with the overwhelming surplus of corpses amid fruits and vegetables—death and life—, roosters fighting, a cat that blends in with the background so much so that we can only see its eyes, a vendor, a pick-pocketing youngster who reminds us of picaresque narratives, doves flying away, one wonders: what exactly am I looking at? It’s almost as if we are looking at everything yet at nothing at the same time. The elements on their own may have a particular meaning, peacocks, for example, were associated with vanity and pride, while deers were representative of purity of heart. But what do these elements tell us when they are all laid out on one table? In “The Work of the Gaze”, Christine Buci-Glucksmann ponders on the “persistent question of the Baroque: can we think simultaneously of emptiness and wholeness” (153). I believe this is exactly the challenge we are faced with here and the main polarity at work. Something that may aid our thinking regarding the wholeness-emptiness dichotomy, is Maravall’s assertion that “despite its apparent and violent naturalism, what the baroque offers us never remains a pure and simple realism” (257). Snyder’s still life exemplifies this in that, by definition, still lifes suggest a certain staging, but in this particular painting such staging is conjugated with a sense of naturalness. Animal bodies are hung from high up, such as the deer, while others make way their way down, off the table and towards the floor, in a natural gravitational movement. I think that it is possible that all elements retain their assigned connotation and we may indeed approach them in this way, but another possibility is for