Language of Vanitas Death Transience Contemporary Still Life Photography

Vanitas

Curatorial statement by Alexander James Hamilton

The language of the vanitas emerged in mid-seventeenth-century Holland during a period of acute economic and moral instability. In 1636, at the height of the Dutch tulip mania, rare bulbs were traded for extraordinary sums, fuelling the first Europe-wide speculative bubble. Its collapse in February 1637 precipitated widespread financial and social turmoil, and it was within this void that the vanitas still life took shape: not as a moral sermon, but as a measured, materially sophisticated reflection on the transience of earthly pleasures and the certainty of death.

Rooted in medieval memento mori traditions and refined through the technical virtuosity of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Dutch still-life painting, the vanitas occupies a peculiar position in the history of Western art. It forms a hinge between religious iconography and the later claims of modern autonomy, a genre suspended between devotion and display. Works by artists such as Adriaen van Utrecht and Willem Kalf presented lavish accumulations of objects such as skulls, flowers, goblets, musical instruments, and extinguished candles, rendered with such obsessive precision that the paintings themselves became objects of desire, quietly undermining their own warnings against excess.

Adriaen van Utrecht, Vanitas Still Life with a Bouquet and a Skull, 1643.

Willem Kalf, Still Life with a Nautilus Cup, 1662.

The Latin vanitas, derived from vanus, meaning both “empty” and “frivolous,” captures the internal contradiction at the genre’s core. The vanitas insists upon humility while simultaneously seducing the viewer through beauty, labour, and refinement. As Gilda Williams has observed, vanitas was never simply about decay. It was also about consecrating value, elevating hand-made, labour-intensive objects into carriers of cultural and metaphysical meaning.

One of the most potent and often overlooked devices within historical vanitas painting is shadow. Unlike the objects it accompanies, shadow cannot be touched or possessed. It functions as a visual threshold, a reminder that human presence is fleeting, insubstantial, and always already receding. In this sense, the vanitas image does not merely depict death. It stages an encounter between the visible and the vanishing.

In the twentieth century, vanitas largely disappeared from critical favour. Modernism’s preference for abstraction, purity, and the brightly lit neutrality of the white cube left little room for a genre rooted in excess, darkness, and contradiction. When it did surface, it appeared only in fragmentary or ironic form, as in Magritte’s skull-topped figures or Georgia O’Keeffe’s desert bones, marginal to dominant narratives of progress.

In the twenty-first century, however, vanitas has re-emerged with renewed urgency. Contemporary artists have returned to its language not out of nostalgia, but because it offers a framework capable of holding contradiction: beauty and decay, attraction and repulsion, permanence and loss. In an era defined by instability, acceleration, and ecological precarity, vanitas once again becomes a viable structure for self-reflection.

Veiled skull with flowers, 2012.

My own Vanitas works engage directly with this lineage while re-situating it within a contemporary photographic and material practice. Working underwater and in real time, these images are formed through gravity, surface tension, and light rather than digital manipulation. Skulls, crucifixes, flowers, and reflective surfaces appear not as symbolic props but as physical participants in unstable conditions, suspended between emergence and dissolution.

Frequency of a crucifixion No. V, 2012.

The skull, historically the central vanitas signifier, recurs throughout these works, but it is no longer a static emblem. Distorted by water, refracted by glass, or partially obscured by shadow, it becomes unstable, estranged from certainty.

The crucifix, newly introduced in recent works, functions not as a doctrinal symbol but as a material and spatial axis: a structure onto which time, belief, erosion, and doubt are projected.

Loves resurrection, 2013.

As in historical vanitas painting, labour remains central. These works resist shortcuts. They require duration, preparation, and acceptance of failure, qualities that stand in quiet opposition to the frictionless efficiency of contemporary image production. In this sense, the practice aligns with vanitas tradition’s insistence on craft as a form of ethical commitment, where meaning is inseparable from making.

Ultimately, vanitas persists because it refuses resolution. It does not instruct the viewer how to live, nor does it offer redemption. Instead, it holds open a space of contemplation in which beauty and impermanence coexist without hierarchy. In revisiting the language of vanitas today, these works do not seek to revive a genre, but to test its continued capacity to bear the weight of contemporary experience.

The great leveller, 2012.

The latest Vanitas works extend this logic with a tighter, more declarative use of the skull and crucifix as structuring devices. These recent images hold less as tableau and more as encounter: the object set against an unstable medium, and the medium itself acting as both distortion and disclosure. The crucifix becomes a literal axis in the frame, a physical scaffold that carries weight, doubt, erosion, and light. The skull, never simply emblematic, returns as a refracted presence, made unfamiliar by water, shadow, and the small failures of control that analogue production requires.