Thought process in landscape

Landscape as practiced day today works in the realm of pictorial.. Of the visual. Off course as a genre of painting which is a visual art form it is bound to be ‘visual interpretation’ of reality. It is ‘pictorial representation’ of three dimensional creation of omnipotent. But is it all? Converting 3D in 2D? This is where the question of thought and vision comes into ‘picture’.

The thought process in landscape may come in application on many levels. While painting a normal ‘picture’ also, artist has to think about what size , what media, which surface, which paper, and then in the scene in front, what to select , what not to select, and then how! These questions get varied in many sub questions which sometimes really irritate me personally when asked…. What paper, which shade of green/ brown, which brand of watercolours, which brush, which water!!!!! As if the bat makes run for Tendulkar or pitch at the most! These questions are in area of ‘thinking’…HOW. And then some are deeper…. Should I leave out that electric pole, should I draw some hen or sheep for rustic effect, should I draw human figure here for scale!!!! These questions are on WHAT.

The semblance of thought in both aspects here is very simplistic and rather beginner’s dilemmas.

The question of WHAT and HOW can encounter a ‘serious’ practitioner also. WHAT to paint? First let’s think about how we think about an on locale painting. We are going to a place to paint. We usually know the place through earlier visits or photos seen. So we know what we are visiting and planning starts with preconditioned ideas what a certain place will look and how we can paint as per our ‘style’. We are already decided what we are going to paint and we like a mechanic paint that with skill which is also predetermined. It’s all as per plan and we seldom encounter the ‘reality’ and seldom do we search.

I have always taken a fancy to a line I read long ago.

SEE A FINISHED PAINTING BEFORE YOU START.

Rather tricky. Unknown to ourselves we have already seen what we are going to paint. But that line may mean something different. TRY TO SEE THE PAINTING THE WAY YOU WILL FINISH KEEPING ASIDE THE NORM BY WHICH YOU USUALLY DO.

In such scenario you will start thinking. Your choice of paper, media and even brand is preconceived by your planned imagination of your landscape. “You say what is so great in that locale, lets do small sketches in Indian colours on handmade!” Or this spot is exciting and saleable!!! So let’s do a large work on Arches using Winsor and Newton and take hours of efforts to do a ‘great’ landscape and sale this!!!! Or win some award!!!!

Well, you lost something of the search which we have to do for becoming an artist.

So if we attempt to look at the spot through the eyes of a child… with amazement and awe and find something new each time, unadulterated by our earlier ‘ideating’ we are on a journey. Eyes of a child I say, as normally we all are childish but not childlike.

So neither shun a little plant on the steps as a subject as gimmicky nor a river thinking it’s too cliché. Nothing can be chosen as naïve or ‘different’ with previous baggage.

Then we start to really think. With a clean slate. And then all questions of What , How and Why will be relevant. Light falling on a hut will be enchanting on its own merit and not because a certain Prashant Prabhu has done that before and it was admired and it got sold. You will paint that because you asked yourself why, and then how? The questions will have your own answers apart from the ones given earlier by others. You may or may not paint a river. You may or may not paint a road. The light shining on the surface of the highway on afternoon may not enamor you and it may not pose you any questions. Fair enough.

But if you walk ahead and see a hut below a banyan tree beside a village road and feel like painting it… STOP for a second and again question yourself. WHY? Because you have always painted those huts under a tree with success? Then a little more walk will be good exercise for the brain 

Further we go deeper in this discussion, we come to realize that questions before us are not of quantum physics nor for solving the European economic crisis. We are simple people doing very simple things. And the thinking process is more of SEARCH than SOLVING. We don’t know even know sometimes what we are searching. We may only know what we are NOT searching. The more we think more we find that most of it has been taken care of by others…. They have already painted it for you!!!!

If we just decide to not to repeat…. Not to paint anything remotely similar to what you have done before…. And then to what anyone as done before…. Then you will not need much prodding. Then leaving out all that is ‘obvious’ you start thinking. Can I paint this too? I have painted once a dish antenna and its shadow on an outing in Yeoor in Thane. Well, some may call it a gimmick. But if you are honest then it won’t be. It will be surely a ‘circus’ who still have the norms and are still thinking with planning they did before they left the house and ‘thought’ about painting the huts in Yeoor by ‘catching the light”

So till now all this talk is still about ‘thought process” and still more on that. As far as vision, it is for another day.  

Turner..... 19 th century

works by Childe Hassam, american impressionist

what is being 'different' in landscape

What is 'different' in landscape as far as subject is concerned? Or what makes one painter more 'different' than others? First, its totally one's own freedom to paint whatever one wants. Just as one wants to paint landscapes or portraits or abstract or surrealistic, same is the case what type of landscape one wants to paint. But then just as a portrait painter has his views on his art, nude painter has his. A nude painter doesn't call a porn picture a nude work. Nor a portrait painter will admire a 'memory' picture of a dead parent. It has its place but not as a work of art. Nothing is useless but everything has its palce and use.

So coming back to our musings, what is different or 'creative' if a landscape artist wants to get out of stagnation? To paint something apart from cliche? This question is there for every creative soul but in landscape a bit trickier and yet a lot easier too.

Let us go deeper. Landscape scene, especially in India is full of skillfull painters and has a big tradition and following. Its full of skillfull but 'expected' stuff. An exhibition of landscapes , by however big a name, has a sphere which we expect and seldom get surprised. We know what will be there in most cases including the experimental ones.

Somehow even experimental has been 'framed' in boundries.

In my own journey as a landscape painter, my attempts at veering off course were met with mixed feelings. Most funny is... ' but this is not landscape!!!!' and on the other extreme....' all said and done, its after all just a landscape!!!! So the question i ask myself and been asked by others, what different ? Or sometimes more personal attack will be, 'whats so different in your landscape that you should call them different? Or painting!!! As i have been going on backfoot sometimes with the disdain shown to landscapes, that i call my landscapes, as 'works' or just 'paintings'. And thats true in a sense that why segregate artworks and why anything should be lower than others. But then you can be proud or respectful of any genre, only and only when its creative enough. So first question still remains... whats different? And it can be answered only in negation, like Upanishad's Neti Neti... and only suggested at most, if positive approach is a must.

So first for fellow practioners of landscapes, whats different can't be defined in exact words. But my answer to question whats different in my works was rather curt...

when you will know that it will show through your works!!! But thats not an answer!

Lets try here. If we start with subject and angel of view, i remeber a thumb rule i gave myself in beginning. On any location, gateway for example, there will be scores of non-painters who will be there with different levels of cameras and aptitude. Watch them, observe them. And avoid all possible conceivable 'picture' they will shoot as your 'painting ' matter. Simple. Whatever others can think of, you shew away.

Then whatever you and your friends will think of as 'good composition ' or 'good view', avoid. And this is way for going ahead with 'commonplace'. Just a beginning.

Then deeper you go. Why i am painting this? Why this? And then why this way?

Is there any reason apart from that it is beautiful and the light is good or the colours are good, is there any reason that i should paint this? One will say, painting is without any reason. Agreed, but then the yearning to do different should not arise neither to excel. Just do it for pleasure and thats also a way. When you are doing it for pleasure you cannot do same stuff again n again if you are really seeking and finding happiness in what you are doing. You cannot sing same type of songs if you really seek bliss and in the same way you cannot paint same 'type' of landscapes if you yearn for hapiness. You may get trip of pride and applause if you keep on doing same type of tried and trusted works with more mechanical efficiency, evoking awe with 'skill'. But will you find happiness of something new?

So ask yourself if you want to paint this? Why and then how? Will it be different if you seek to find new path from your intelligence or will it give you happiness of romancing the new.

So when we discuss what is different, we know what is not different. We see all the 'indian' village scenes and mumbai landmarks which are good as mementos for tourists. We see all the ' my wife/son also paints when he has time' kind of landscapes. Well, in an annual exhibition or art fair, among numerous landscapes, does a particular work attracts attention? Not an awe at close scrutiny of the intricate strokes or 'left out paper's white'. But the uniqueness of the whole visual?

The experience you get of the 'experience' of the artist while he painted?

Do you feel that you would have never painted this, not because of lack of ability but you wouldn't have seen or imagined this way? You wouldnt have thought or dared to paint this!!!!

This is experimental but not being gimmicky or cliche!

It is different because it cannot be in any other way and its different not with the intention of being so, but just is that way!

Artist has painted the scene not finding the scene to be unique but he could paint it as the experience he had was unique. It's like Leaning tower is unique or the Taj, but the paintings of these unique 'things' will be ..... hmmm...illustrating the uniqueness.

And that reminds me a landscape by of taj, which was different. A view from river, from the boat. Most of the audience will be in awe of his mastery over the medium. Granted. But what touched the chord was the view and the experience of 'seeing taj differently'.

Well, it all sounds confusing or circumventing... but thats what we are attempting here no? To define 'different' through common word.

we have framed the landscape with skill

Whats the skill is made of? We are talking in terms of landscape painting here. More of watercolour landscapes as it is dominant medium especially in on locale type.

Skill in crafts or any activity where specialization is required is matter of doing certain thing better, efficiently, effectively, 'beautifully' than other less 'endowed' practioners of that craft. Skill separates men from boys. Seniors from apprentices. Skill makes it's owner superior to the others who are mediocre. Skillfull mechanic will attract more business and renown. But we are not talking of craft here. And in this there is no insult meant to craft. Its perfectly honourable to do your thing with honesty and dedication.And honesty and dedication is the thing. It makes life worthwhile.

But Who is an artist? How is a follower of craft different than follower of art. Art is making life beautiful... more beautiful than what it will be if artists are not there. Crafts make things easier and smooth, but beauty is different. If artists are not there, painting would have been there, just like say, cooking. Again no offence. There are people in cooking who are sublime, but everyone cooks. So everyone, nearly everyone has painted or doodled some day in his life. So, whats the job of an artist? To paint skillfully, which anyone can given time and chance? Landscape painters, and in larger context realists are threatened now with advancement in technology. We all know whats meant by that term.

One is apt to defend in the name of talent. God given ability. Whats that? Its a subject for another day. But talent is not being able to paint a bullock cart on village road in streaks of sunrays efficiently with brush.Well its already painted well by HIM, and anybody with little eyes for beauty will see. Is skill lies in putting it on paper which others cannot even though they are aware of it?

The level of 'skill' in putting it will vary i admit. Some will put it more 'beautifully' than others who will not be able to 'catch the light' or 'catch the mood'. So what? Some mechanic will repair the Mercedes better than others. And an intelligent driver 'knows' what wrong, but doesnt possesss the 'skill'. Luckily machines have not come, a la camera, that has questioned the mechanic. Good for him.

Coming back to landscape painters, camera only highlighted the obvious. Turner would never have dreamt of digital cameras which will 'paint' the sunsets better than normal run of the mill painters. He was 'turner' because he was not only skillfull but a visionary. And vision is the real 'skill' of landscape painter. For any painter also, but in case of modernists, the vision is more subtle phenomenon. For landscape 'vision' has become essential if that art form has to remain relevant.

Painting something beautifully and skillfully, was good till the practice and time spent for years disguised itself as talent. Even now when i am painting on locale, many people admire the 'skill', and then say my son also paints well.

Well well well, whats is he saying? And sometimes a young turk admires my guts to spend so much time on 'painting!!!' or 'sit on road'. But do you ever have been questioned 'WHY' you are painting this...this way? Why you are painting is a common question. But why, this way? Or why, this? Why, that area or scene? Does it question the commoner why? Not how?

When you exhibit, does the audience gets awestuck by your skill, in their sense of the word, your efforts ? Or does it get awestuck by 'differentness' of your painting itself? Be it choice of subject itself ...why this? Or choice of 'way of seeing'... whats this? Does he admires your 'differentness' in 'guiding' him in seeing the world more beautifully?

This seeing the unseen or seeing it differently is just the beginning . What landscape painter lacks is a vision. Now we usually misunderstand vision with 'way of seeing' differntly. Its too narrow or rather wrong interpretation.

The skill which we talk of, somewhat consists of this skill of seeing things also. Some see things differently than others. You will say thats true for all. Yes, but we are talking of degrees here. Slight change of angle or composing tree here and there on picture square is not seing things differently.

So first angle of view. Then seeing it 'differently'. Then vision. These three steps loosely in a way differentiate the skill from talent. From practice to passion. Now dont think you are to climb this step by step. Well, it just marks out levels or types. Maybe levels of landscape painters themselves. And this applies more to landscape painting. Talent has different connotations for different genres.

Majority excel in skill. Find solace and pride in that. Few have the aptitude of angle of view and seeing things differently. Sometimes or most of the times its misjudged as divine talent. A different angle of view makes landscape attractive and commands attention. And different way of seeing helps artist to paint such subjects or locations which others wont even imagine as candidate for painting. But thats not exactly a vision.
Even my own experience in journey so far can vouch for this. 
 Majority of us, will feel great in 'catching' that light or catching that 'mood' or 'time of the day'...or even feel of the place. But as i said earlier its felt by all. A certain eeriness of night street, a certain light early morning in temple looks beautiful. Only thing is that painter takes years of efforts to be able to paint those.

And what happens is that 'acheivement' of skill is considered epitome of artistic excellence. Thats what is considered a great landscape should be. And that makes us stagnate.

If we get harsh on ourselves, then the attainment of skill has somewhat narrowed the scope of landscape painting. The whole sphere of excellence has diminished to 'how'. How a certain painter paints trees or how certain other paints streets or how one 'leaves white' or some other 'uses' white. How i use 'black' even though its not to be used!!! i admit everyone will have a uniuqe way of brushwork or 'illustrating' things. Everyone will have different ways of wash or detail or penache. But thats skill not talent. Definitely not god gift!

In short, the main bane of landscape has been deluding ourselves with being 'gifted' or 'talented' when we achieve a certain level of skill with practice. That makes us paint same things more skillfully year after year, generation after generation. Walking the same road with better gait as we improve with better shoes and better practice.

EVERY PAINTING NEEDS A FRAME. BUT WE HAVE FRAMED THE 'LANDSCAPE' ITSELF. WE HAVE FRAMED IT WITH SKILL.

Landscape as an art form.

Its in practice by large part of painter community for a long time with different levels of commitment.

Landscape was never a part of art school curriculum nor was it ever considered a serious genre. Its a more of sunday painters activity to show of their skills and a profession of artists in representational leanings. Its an amateur subject or amateurish painting genre for those who are not apt or not inclined to aim higher.

Why all these objections? Who is to be blamed? Certainly not all of it can be transfered to the 'thinking' heads of conceptual or abstract painters, which loosely are clubbed under head of 'modern artists'.

We, landscape painters need to look elsewhere. How about inside our 'self'?

Why these charges are levelled and we do nothing but fret or counter it by disdainful comments on 'them'? Why we never ponder over the fact that any painter of note or potential talent for that matter 'evolve' to more mature art forms to express his advancement as a painter?

I always keep harping, looking for a chance to say this,

Landscape , like any other genre of art is not bad. But whats dished out in the name of landscape is bad.

Now one might argue this holds true for all types. Yes, it does. But it is rather apparent that percentages of rather shoddy work in landscape is much higher than say figurative art. And we are painting those, so buck stops with us.

Now whats shoddy or mediocre is a matter of debate. As Vassily Kandinsky said, art which isnt keeled in waters of current times and thinking, is not creative enough. Art forms evolve alongside the society. New movements came. And revolutions and larger evolutions happened. Evolution is nothing but a chain of revolutions, isnt it? Impressionism was one big revoltion. What started with Turner came to a golden height with Van Gough.

We in India, took to landscape largely with Brits, following the impressionism and english watercolours tradition.

Now what? At the turn of last century, stalwarts in Maharashtra for example, did sublime works. Sublime as per their times. But do we keep on apeing them? Well, we are living in this century, using modern equipment and wearing jeans and communicating with mobiles while 'on the spot', but doing the same stuff? We dont wear a dhoti and coat, do we?
Mind you its not about technique. Watercolours as a medium, or any medium if you insist on being a hardcore purist in technique, will have a dead end. How long you will delude yourself that you are mastering the 'technique of the medium'?
Technique or skill, is there to be learnt and it has its use. But we have cacooned in time wrap. All that is aimed is a 'skillfull pictorial representation of a scene'. The variety is limited to individual brushing and location and lighting conditions and atmosphere at the most.

Sometimes the shadow is darker on the left of the house sometimes in front. Sometimes the road if ending on the left side , sometimes on the right. Sometimes the river is wide, sometimes its dry, in which washer women are must. Temple from far, temple from near. Women on well, men on bullock cart, gates and streets in noon, in morning or evening or at night!

someone does 'bold' washes, someone does 'detailed work'... someone uses deep colours, someone 'leaves' white efficiently. Someone does figures well, someone does buidings. Someone is better at painting VT or fountain.... someone at 'jungle' in national park.

So, landscape or proficiency in landsacape is what? Painting the scene well with art media, which is a result of years of practice and attained skill?

Does a landscape painter 'paints with brush with skill” what a good amatuer photographer with reasonably good camera and 'way of seeing things ' can easily emulate and many times better it? As the large portion of our 'skill' is taken care of by the machine, photographer has a headstart in terms of giving time for 'search and expression'.

So, O painter of landscapes, awake and arise.