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.