Still Life vs. Nature Photography

In the still life photography class I'm taking, Kim Klassen posted a couple prompts on "found" still lifes or real life still lifes. Basically, scenes from your life which look like or qualify as still lifes. She included a photograph from her yard. It made me think about the difference between still life photography and nature photography. Kim's approach to still life photography is that it's about the process - about breathing and finding quiet, stillness and peace. And she suggested that you can find that without posing or choreographing a photograph. While I was in Oregon, I tried to find an appropriate nature still life.  I took the photograph above. What do you think? Is that a still life? I think it's a beautiful photograph, and it captures stillness and peace. I'm glad I took it and it's one of the types of photographs I love to take. But, to me, the thing I have liked about the still life photography class has been the creating, posing and choreographing of shots. It's kind of like creating a painting or drawing but using props and my camera instead. I didn't think nature photography could be still life photography.

And then this happened. I was walking to work, and I "found" this scene. The lighting, the colors, and the composition all screamed "still life" to me. So I got out my iphone and captured the image. And now I think I get what Kim was getting at. There are some still lifes, some vignettes, out there to be found in nature. They have been posed by an unseen hand, but posed nonetheless. Created to draw the viewer in and experience peace and quiet. And stillness.
Thoughts?