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.