It's true that the "realists" generally consider the human form as one of the "really good subjects," but I can assure you there are a good number of still life artists represented. Occasionally there's even one who did something other than pots full of flowers (usually dead animals?). Most of those who specialized in still life don't have as many images up, per artist, as the ones who took on more varied subjects.

One "©ARC Living Master" who does a fair percentage in still life paintings is Timothy Tyler. (Try at about page 4 or 5 of the Tyler Gallery.) Fred took a "special interest" in him, so there's a rather overblown (IMO) "analysis" of one of his paintings (which Fred bought) up front, but stills are about half(or a third?) of his 53 images at ARC.

And there's a seemingly endless parade of artists who painted nothing but "tall masted sailing ships." Sometimes the waves go one way, and sometimes it's 'tother, but I can't tell one from the next. Several omit the ships and just painted the waves.

There are some fairly large collections of "Hudson Bay School" artists, and a lot of one- or two-painting artists of that school, who painted glorious landscapes, with nary a soul in them. Scots and Dutch painters also seem to be well represented in the landscape specialists.

Venitian and other Roman landscapes seem to be the entire output of a number of artists represented there. Scenes of Paris seem usually to have a few "figures" in them, but they're often rather incidental to the architecture. Several "Orientalists" omit the harems ($%@#!) and seem to have painted only deserts and buildings.

There are a few artists who specialized in animals, either domestic or exotic, and a fair number who seem to have painted only horses. (The latter also suggest that no 19th century British artist ever actually saw a horse, but maybe the Brits do/did breed them malformed that way - at least for racing.)

John