of practice and materials

One may notice, that there is a line of attack on landscape as a “ Sunday painter's “ pursuit for leisure. Or at best, his weapon for bravado in art world. Why and how this attack came about? I have discussed this before. A little more.

Impressionists were never Sunday painters. They gave their lives and careers for this foolish passion. Gaugain for example left thriving stock market wealth and legal practice to struggle as a painter! But as I have said earlier and many say this in derision, landscape from scenes , while on trip, makes one an amateur 'artist' amongst his friends. Well, we are not part of that 'kind'. But then landscape painter, or painter who is devoted largely to landscapes, has to refute this by his example. The onus lies on us.

One of the major bane or failing of landscape in regard to keeping with time, is non seriousness of the practioner of this genre. For earning a living many of us follow other professions or allied art forms. Well and good. But then do we keep constant DAILY practice with this art form? If not daily, how about a bit more than weekends? And here the art of working from photographs will come into play. We city folks will not be able to paint on weekdays, but then those who are 'serious' will try adapting from references. The insistence of working on locale and also 'not from photographs' is clearly interlinked. And so we see paucity of opportunities of painting landscapes and hence lack of practice and final resultant amateurishness.

How much and how many times is a personal choice? But nothing comes easy if you are not divinely blessed, which contrary to every one's belief we are not! So years of constant SADHANA ..meaning practice is indispensable. Painting once a week for a few years will delude you with skill at the most!

And then question comes of the economics! Daily practice requires materials. Yes they do! And papers of high quality cost a bob and artist quality colours of international brands a big fortune! Then what? This dilemma has many aspects.

First from personal experience, a general impression about 'professionals' getting great work each time is using best materials. We can't afford it! Now this will be dicey and complicated. First, as all professional will somewhat guiltily 'claim' that good materials only won't suffice. And its not a question of affordability alone but also of choice. 

Correct. But allow me go deeper and be a bit brash. All the better artists , at least in India, have trudged early years on 'inferior'(?) materials honing their skills like any art student. And constant practice need not be shied away from lack of affording better materials. And once you get on higher plane, and if you 'make it'... who is stopping you from using better materials regularly? And frankly if one is really passionate then he will spend on materials at cost of all else... a certain Van Gough did!!!

Let me give an anlogy. In Indian cricket team, we have two 'artists' with bat... Tendulkar and Laxman who dazzle one and all with their artistry with willow. So, what is their secret? Anyone taking their bat or 'affording' to use such bat, should be able to play reasonably well, if not 'that well'. Nobody will be that good but then what stops others from coming anywhere near? And both of them must have worked for years with 'normal' gear on practice pitches to arrive here. Even now, before the match, both are given only practice pitches ....even if HE is GOD!!!!

So let us understand, that good material will not guarantee the great work each time. Agreed that good material is conducive for better results and better paper responds better to your experiments. But one has to attain that understanding and experience to try that skill and then by all means use Arches/ Artistco! Constant practice and giving thought all your life to your vocation is first requirement. And one sub section on this problem. We see many advanced painters using 'imported' materials of affordable range, what is called 'amateur' range abroad. And expecting to get great results. Well many times they don't! And then they get disheartened. From my personal experience such range is an eye wash. Rather go whole hog and use the best or make do with ordinary stuff. Its a subtle pride and mirage we are running behind in using the so called 'international' brands. What you pay for, you get! So I for one, will rather went for Indian Handmade than some 'amateur' range. And mind you, once you get 'real' mastery over the medium then any..ANY paper in the world will not hinder you. I vouch it from my own experience and all of those who know will too.

So lets stop beating around the bush and start working regularly with whatever we can 'afford' :-)

Finding something new every time!

As landscape painters, when we are going on the spot, there are two types of painters we see. As said earlier, most of them, are planning in mind what they will paint after reaching, with previous knowledge or experience of the spot. And few will keep a clean slate or open mind and encounter the scene with fresh eyes. But both of them many times are faced with one giant question. What NEW I can paint here, which is not done before?

Now this 'done before' has two connotations. Never done by me or never done before by anybody??? the second question will fast coming to a stage where you wont find an answer. WHATEVER SUBJECT YOU WILL SEE HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE BY SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. YOU MAY NOT KNOW BUT SOMEONE ELSE WILL POINT OUT!

The first question is trickier than first thought. You have not seen the whole world and it is not possible. Then you will always find unseen...unseen by you... places to paint. So you may say that this is not painted before. Is it so simple? If one goes deep inside ones self and even enter the memory, most of us paint the same thing again and again! We keep on repeating the same landscape with cosmetic changes. We keep on masticating. So finding something new isnt answered by looking for subjects or places. It is found inside .

It is said, that some artists have a different way of seeing. I paint 'different' kind of landscapes because I have a knack of seeing things differently. Well, there may be some sense in it but the truth is artist sees the way he paints. 

Let me elaborate further. Some people are fond of pretty pictures wherever they go. So they look for huts along the road below a tree. Or say bullock cart or a village well. They will not and cannot see a barren grassland or wide empty highways. They are fond of forests and old monuments. They may not see at modern buildings or shanties. I am giving samples which are most cliche. But the fact remains, artist will look for the subjects he fancies. It is not the other way round as it is said that artist paints the way he sees. But he looks for subjects the way he paints.

So wherever one goes, first step is not to repeat yourself. Be very ruthless to yourself. Challenge yourself. Broadly we find our niche in two modes. One is way of expression, be it style, angle of views or composition or technique. And second is subjects... windows, markets, railways, beaches, monuments or village scenes. In both catagories challenge yourself. Subjects when repeated are easier to be pointed out.... that we are stuck with subjects. But in ways of expression and style, it is more subtle. If you find that you have got this knack of using dark shades and painting 'light at the end of tunnel' feel, go for something else. Or you find that you have got into the habit of painting bold washes and skies...repeating it mechanically... wake up. And let me admit, this mistakes I myself have gone through... being stuck in one particular 'style' and 'angle of views'.

And there is another view on the 'change'. You may paint a 'speciality' subject of yours but then challange on technique and execution front. Rock formations...well look for different way to paint rocks. Windows and doors.... look for different angles. And if you have knack of 'seeing differntly' of composing differently, then challange yourself on subject front. Find different places which you only will be able to see the way you can.

Whenever you feel that I should paint this, then ask yourself, HAVE I DONE THIS BEFORE? Not this particular door or tree, but something similar? I dont need to tell you, that your inner voice will tell you the answer.

And finally, finding something that nobody has done before! Well, that is far difficult and requires 'divine providance' in many cases. And we easily delude ourselves on that.

Abstract artists are in more precarious position. At least we representational artists become aware of similarities but in abstract you see nearly all experimentation is 'seen before'. And I am not talking about repeataion by the same painter. All 'new' breakthroughs are blatantly comsetic. Some texture here, some shape there. But finally the overall visual leaves you with just one feeling...have seen this before!

So it is really a spark that flies out of fire and ignites a new flame. You keep challanging yourself, asking question.... and not repeat yourself. The 'individuality' of artist and his work should be in the 'feel' and 'experience' and not in technical virtuosity or uniqueness of subject or execution.

My master always told me that your work should not be so predictable that it itself becomes your signature.

What I understand now.... your each work should be a new experience with a feeling and acknowledgement that only you can give that experience!

Ask, ask, ask.... HAVE I DONE THIS BEFORE?

Use of photos - 2

In the first part i had mentioned my insistence on taking your own photograph.

Every painter is not a trained photographer and may not have a great instrument. But taking ones own photo, has a certain positives. First, you see the 'original' yourself while shooting. You are there and have experienced the place, and seen through the viewfinder. Seen through that hole you get an idea what you are intending to paint and that view is like that of a  'window' we use in on the spot working. We can choose a part of the whole. 

And for the more sentimental painters, the feel of the place, the sun, wind, and smells too subtly influence  your work.

The whole exercise makes shooting your own photograph a better choice. 

Now we go deeper in the positives of the photograph as a reference.

Photo is 2D. So the romance of conversion from 3D is lost. But then the original 3D is vast and seems daunting to the painter with its vastness or number of things. Photograph reduces the numbers and vastness. But that is not only result that we are seeking. Usually on locale, the whole question of selecting and deleting and conversion of perspective and simplifying the colours around, all these create lot of questions and in solving them most of the 'thought process' gets exhausted . And artist has little chance and energy for experiment and deviating from reality. We are going to paint our 'own' image and not 'paint' a photograph by hand. Most of the times the whole exercise of the selecting thwarts the search for original.

Taking your photograph can be said as a first step where we do most of the selection and 'composing the view' part. We find less questions to solve in the second part of painting the landscape itself. But this second part which simplifies the process, many times misleads the painter in actual practice.

As said earlier, one slavishly copies from photograph. So the idea of simplifying the process backfires. But we can also argue, that one who 'copies' or 'illustrates' can easily manage that on the spot too. So whats the key? First understand that by using photo we are not going to just 'ease' the inconveniences of painting on locale. You are not replacing the hot sun and dusty air with cool enviornment of the studio by using photos.

We are going to utilize the energy saved in 'thinking' , in finding new ways.

While working from photo one may have to desist from oberving the photo a lot. Rather look at it as least as possible. Use it to see the composition or colours for just 'refering'. This is really important. 'refering'. Just refer. And paint what you remenber or more important what inspired you when you saw that scene. I for one, many times prefered black n white photos. Its a personal choice. But black n white in my experience tends to influence the colours in painting near to nothing. So you can paint the colours you want, not what the photo dictates.

No Influence! Dont allow the photo to influence. It is just a reference and you are taking this route to 'deviate'. Lesser you rely on the photo to find the reality, better it is. It should not dictate what you are going to paint but just help you in stop getting dictated by vast scenes on locale.

And slowly one day, photograph will be just an aid to refresh the memory. To remind the 'original shapes' and not to show you how the objects were like. The clear aim and understanding will make it a fruitful exercise to paint from photo. Or it will be a bane. Then on the spot painting will be the right choice. It has its own positives and negatives. But if you cannot surmount the problem of 'slavish copying' then please leave this path of painting from photos. From my experience watching others, its easier to get slaved in copying a photo than on the spot!

So even though i use photos a lot as reference, i admit its not an easy way as it seems and better be mixed alongside constant practice of on the spot painting.

Ultimately the final work is important and not the path. The quality is important not the method!

Enjoy!

use of references and photos for landscapes

Landscape is usually considered to be on locale painting genre. Now this needs to be understood. Why this need for on the spot painting?

Since the impressionist rebellion, painter understood mainly one thing, that he needs to paint what he sees. The earlier romantic period for example, was idealizing whatever subject was to be painted including landscapes. The followers of landscape were relatively less in number and they also painted a bit glorified view of the world. Beauty was so elaborately painted that it was sometimes looked aggressive. Impressionist showed us the beauty of painting the reality and fleeting glimpse with 'real' colours. The brain was pushed back and eyes came in forefront.

On the spot painting teaches many things to all artists from all levels of seniority and seriousness. The light and colours, the perspective, the conversion of 3D to 2D , and how to compose the vast reality in front on the small rectangle of the paper. The efforts to show the time of the day, the season, the sumshine and cloudiness all teaches one thing or the other. Even in cities the on the spot painting teaches a lot more than one may assume. Its not only the beautiful villages which are right material for excursions but also the bustling cities if you manage to find enough space and quietitude for yourself. The business of life and fast pace is really a muse to an artist with that liking.

So we all agree that landscape is better learnt on the spot. Then comes the question of references. Many a times artist finds it hard to get space at say a railway station or market. He chooses to do a key sketch, with colours if possible. We in india, don't have the real tradition like English, of doing travel sketches in sketchbooks, prefering instead to make drawings or rapid sketches. These preferences apart, artist feels the urge to put the view on paper and conditions are uncomfortable or even 'hostile'. So he makes adjustments and sketches.

And that brings us to the more modern phenomenon of landscapes in studio or from references  Usually all these years in all the exhibitions of landscapes, we see query on the face of the viewer esecially fellow artists, IS IT ON THE SPOT?

We need to understand this question and its intention and answers and motive behind them. And legitimacy and advantages /disdvatages of the painting landscapes in studio.

We all know most of us want to paint on locale but dont. We are condescendingly accept the sketch references but not photos used for reference. Sketches finally are done on the spot. Photos? They also are taken on the spot! We all know the larger works are not feasible to do on locale. And sometimes smaller too say, in vegetable market. But we see many times the question asked if there is doubt and apologetical answer or plain falsity from the painter regarding the reference .

Why the question and why the apology or falsity?

We have experienced many things while working with photos. I am keeping sketches aside because truely we all know its seldom done. Artist will rather paint full painting then and there, or take a photo. All of us, including yours truely have lied many times as having done a sketch while we all know that we had shot a photo.

Working with photos has a lot of disadvatages. First its a 'picture' in itself albeit by camera but a 2D picture. So the adventure of 3D to 2d is lost. And also the composition and perspective part. And photograph is still. It is tough for a beginner at least, to imbibe the flow and movement of the place from a photograph in comparison to live scene. Many times photograph tends to have different feel in light and colours part too. And most troublesome part for one who tends to paint on and on and on, is overworking. He doesnt know where to stop!!! Too many details creeping in from the photograph so it is somewhat difficult to eliminate things.

So, its agreed that working from a photograph is a not a suitable choice for many especially beginners and also advanced amateurs. But if you notice, all the disadvatages are not insurmountable. And they are of the skill level problems.

Firstly one who has a capacity for minimalism or has a knack of different angle of view, these problems wont arise. A minimalist will eliminate from actual scene and from photo with equal finnesse. And one who 'sees differently' will take the photo with that angle only. Coming to this, its imperative to take your own photograph. Its a taboo to use others' photos however great they seem to you. And even when the photographer is a friend and allowed its use! Afterall photograph is also a work of art and we dont copy others' works, do we?

So the arguement of the photo misleading doesnt hold true. As far as perspective and colours and light is concerned, one who wishes to paint his own thing and not 'depict' the scene faithfully wont find it a much of a bother. And frankly, the case of wrong perspective is based on the old fashioned idea of 'correcting' the 'illusions' in vanishings. Verticles have to be verticles! If one is intelligent, he will see that skycrapers do look tilted to naked eye too. So if one wishes to experiment then photograph will be an usefull aid for deviating from the reality.

But, all these are remedies for acquiring skill for working from photograph.

And for that, i from my own experiences over the years, will vouch for mixed approach. Working on locale is a must for a landscape painter as a riyaz. Complete reliance on photos can be detrimental for grounded studies.

And on the other hand it is stubborn attitude to insist on on the spot painting and taking pride in it. Especially when what is painted doesn't merit that pride.

It is the final work and its quality and maturity beyond the overt skill and technical mastery, that justifies the means. Work from photo or on locale, without keeping any insistance, just looking for bettering each time. Its better to paint a sublime work in studio rather than make a hash of things on locale. And if a certain painting has to be painted on location, then dont fret for the inconvineances of hot sun or rush around!

Enjoy!

simplification and minimalism

Bringing a “thought” into play in your landscape is rather a “modern” or “contemporary” way and is yet to be practiced by a significant number of artists. But another line which is largely prefered way of finding your own 'style' is on the path of visual and it is usually simplification and abstraction.

When one is planning a landscape looking at location - but not planning beforehand which brings out usually mediocre works- thousands of things and colours can be seen by the artist. In a jungle for a common man, there is green trees all around but for a painter hundreds of different hues of green and so many different shapes , sizes and textures in each tree. And automatically as the painter cannot replicate the whole, he chooses a few greens of his choice and few shapes of trees and gets done with it. Now that is not the simplification we are discussing here. Thats is simplification out of compulsion or plain inability if one may say so. Unless you are a photo realistic painter, this kind of simplification is normal way to do landscapes. This simplification is practiced without that much thought and who wants to paint each leaf anyways!

When a painter simplifies a tree or a building, he knows that the viewer has the ability to interpret its 'symbolism'. But lets go deeper. Usually all of us are adapt at simplification of each 'thing' in the work, each object, but the whole landscape looks a bit cluttered. We feel that many times after we finished. Or the painter may delude himself that he has painted everything simplified while putting lot of 'things' on paper! And some more intelligent will 'remove' certain things as 'it is not required”. Delete the unnecessary.

Ok. Quite smart thing to do. But why not paint only that much which is 'very essential' or 'utmost important' ? Paint only that much without which work will not be there!!! Instead of deleting, why not 'add' on the whiteness of paper what is most required for the work to come into being?

And we 'see' which object to put and which not to. But the moment you start looking them at objects a slight attempt of 'illustrating' the object 'properly' begins on a subconscious level. Artist may not even know it. So the key is consciously see only shapes , and see which are very necessary for the painting to happen. The 'details' of the objects are painted or indicated while we paint the 'objects'. But they can be indicated without painting 'exact' and  can we paint smaller sub shapes inside bigger shapes?

And same we can do with colours and lines. Only the most necesary colours...minimum required colours and minimum lines.

Frankly this is my favoured approach. Minimalist one may say. This can be a part of the answer to the question what is to be different in landscape? And this also requires a lot of thought process. Choosing the most essential may be the intention but in the flow of things, we usually paint, paint and paint. And mind you, its very addictive and self satisfying when you can paint with efficiency and  find pleasure. But the key is to be aware when to stop. An artist should know when to stop, is very cliched line. I would say artist, especially on locale landscape painter, has to know when he has to stop 'selecting more and more objects' for the painting.

Simplify to the extent that the viewer should be questioning what and where is the place. And when he fails to 'identify' the place we can hope that he will entre into the aesthetic aspects of the work rather than 'record' of the place. The viewer better be in awe of the outlook or vision of the artist than the ability.

And further you go on the path abstraction will happen.Abstract is after all painting the forms, colours , shapes, textures and lines. No identifying 'thing'. Even symbols may not be identifiable objects. But pure abstraction is not the aim for the painter of landscape here. This yearning for simplification is for the one who streches the imagination to the boundry of realism.... yet doesnt 'represent or depict'.

For abstraction in landscape ...for another day.

Role of thought depiction and its relation with visual

  Role of thought and relationship of thought with visual.

Painting is a visual art and landscape in particular is mainly visual genre. Painting over ages has evolved from aid to decoration to aid to social upheavals. Writing, both poetry and prose, has been a potent force as far as enlightening the masses is concerned and so also the dramatics n even dance. But painting was not that potent. It always towed the line of religion and establishment. But since the rebellion of impressionism and then Dadaism n pop art et el art became a avenue for protest and also expression of ‘thought. The deeper searching of human intelligence influenced and also vent out their discoveries in painting. The landmark works Scream, Guernica, and many works of Schille, Pollock, Dali and not to forget Picasso were search of an intelligent mind.

Conceptual art became happening in last few decades. Art which conveys a meaning and a thought but not a story as such, came in vogue. Art began to give and form opinions. They began movements outside their cloisters and in whole society. They began to get arrested or imprisoned like in China. It started guiding society not only to beauty but also to knowledge or understanding. And that created a debate and few questions for artists who dwelled in visual world. Was it the work or duty of art to ‘preach’ or teach? What authority does an artist have to say things which has nothing to do with beauty or visual language?

Well, any arts can be questioned in the same way.

I am not defending the right to ‘preach’ ....but why we should ‘teach’ that whether one should preach or not?

And that brings to the topic on hand. We have discussed the thought process, now let us discuss the role of thought depiction. Does landscape give a scope for depicting thoughts like conceptual works? Or does landscape wants to enter into that sphere?

The second way of asking seems more apt.

Landscape has ….. should I say, languished in visual for long. Well, contemporary artists have used landscape as part of their paintings, quite potently to convey their message but landscape, 'pure” landscape has shied away from bringing ‘thought ‘ in its frame. We have been happy to paint pretty pictures for too long. I know I am harping on this. But the evolution or revolution may need one front of thought depiction also.

One may experiment with shapes, and angle of views, and way of seeing things. One may paint ‘different’ subjects.... and mundane subjects differently.All of that is different paths of searching and all of them require thinking. And one may also paint landscapes which induce ‘thinking’ by the viewer. And for that the artist should ‘think’.

We paint what is around. We paint everything under the sun including the sun and beyond the sun too. Then why we leave out the ‘happenings’ and ‘events’ and ‘influences’. Why we don’t paint the change in the landscape around? The city landscapes are changing. Well, some will paint the modern buildings. Good enough. But will he be content to paint the skyscraper the same way he will paint a Victorian monument and feel modern? Does he give a thought to the ‘change’?

Let me say about my own efforts, not to boast but as an experience of a beginner. Decade back in my solo show in Jehangir art gallery, I exhibited a series of landscapes which were pairs or diptychs if one may call them. Each pair showing what Mumbai was a century back and what the same location is now. And my personal favorite was that of Khada Parasi in Byculla. All may not be aware of the location even today. But it’s a statue of a a parasi leader on a long pole. And hundred years back it was in a empty circle which is more of a ground or maidan in Mumbai’s language. And now you cannot find its existence till you reach bang under it as it is flanked by two flyovers and traffic all around. The progress of the mega polis!

Now that’s not a great example, I frankly admit. But can we paint a landscape of progress?

And lets discus the question of Why landscape need to do this ‘thought depiction’?

Well, ones choice. It is one way to grow out of the rut, I may say. As long as an artist questions himself and his methods and his current work output then there is hope for improvement. And some may say going astray! Well isn’t it a risk and also the charm of searching? And why we frame ourselves by limits? Agreed, landscape is visual like any other painting and nobody denies that it will remain so whatever you paint. Even ‘intelligent comments’ on today’s times will be ‘painted’ in visual only. Can we add a bit of spice? Can we enlarge our realm?

Can we paint the barren fields with want of irrigation instead of green crops? Can we indulge ourselves with factories in semi urban areas finishing its ‘ruralness’ without making ‘revolutionary’ works? On the other hand can we also paint the ‘betterment’ of the same village without romanticizing the bullock cart age?

Some day the Bombay Stock Exchange building will be of ‘old’ style and all the Victorian monuments may be extinct. Then do we landscape painters paint the ‘old little’ stock exchange building as it is so romantic? Or do we paint the feeling we have about that skyscrpaer now? When it is still what it is meant to be? Do we paint what importance it has in our world?

Landscape has long been dogged by 'romanticizing'. In the name of painting the beautiful we have hardly given any thought to 'thought' or 'feeling'. We know that the sunsets are beautiful and colourful. Do we ever think of painting the colours instead of the colourful?

And we also know the railway stations are good subjects which allow us to show our skill. But do we show the 'life' at the station? Very seldom they show the movement.

And sometimes we add human presence, in say while painting a forest, without thinking if, in painting of a forest, is it 'right'?

Basically the 'right' thinking is the key. As said earlier most of our thinking is either too shallow or blatantly wrong. Rather than inducing the intelligent viewer to think about what we are trying to convey, if we are trying to in the first place, we allow them to mock us for 'non thinking' or naivity.

So, lets 'think' and make the 'viewer also think'.   

We have discussed skill till now in detail. Skill is what makes one adept at his own craft or work. It makes him efficient but not quite an artist. Skill makes him better worker and he brings smoothness in others lives but beauty? That is where art and talent or art comes in.

Art, may it be any art form, music to painting, is a most non essential yet with a capacity to have profound effect on human life. It maybe preposterous for logical minded intellectuals but arts is what separates man from other beings. World is full of art and beauty but we the humans are blessed with capacity to appreciate it..... in trees and in tigers who themselves have no idea that they are beautiful. So the talent for art is what separates humans from others.

Now, the ability to ‘create’ the art or works of art is what separates the human society. On one side is large sea of humanity who yearns to make their life beautiful and on the other side we are their servants, artists. One may take objection to the word servant, so we may say in service…like missionaries of charity…missionaries of beauty. The miniscule minority is in service to use the talent with passion to serve and make their life beautiful and sometimes guide them.

Now who forms this minority? Who has the divine grace and power to serve the humanity? Ones with talent. So lets discuss talent with specific focus with our dear subject of landscape painting.

As I often have said, we see a plethora of landscape painters. Those who paint landscapes with skill. Why landscapes is so popular ? Well, being a little harsh lets admit it’s a subject which requires least amount of effort to produce a quantity if you neglect the uneasy question of quality. Go on any free day, and paint a pretty picture, in true English tradition. And watercolours are so easy to paint plainly if, again the uneasy question of quality and depth is neglected. After all watercolours were first called tinted sketches. Simply painted sketches or studies for doing larger works in oils. Thanks to the fellow Turner that we can call them paintings now. And is considered a serious medium. And to be fair, the landscape itself in any media was more of backdrop till Impressionists.

So lets focus. Talent. It’s a magic potion that separates ‘artists’ from ‘painters’ of landscapes. Can we define the word talent or explain it like skill? Well, we need to be poetic to explain whats beyond logic and what is in realm of esoteric or occult. To paint a village scene with bullock cart or women with water pails or huts under trees is possible with skill. How about painting village life with none of these. Hot afternoon sunlight burning the old men waiting for the bus which is late by hours? A child playing with makeshift toys .... basically not painting the picture which we city folk have about villages. Or what we know that city dwellers expect a village scene to be! Basically not paint anything by the expected norms as far as subject and its depiction is concerned.

Even this is not that clear. Basically landscape stagnates on mediocrity when it ‘illustrates’ or ‘depicts’ a place or location. ‘leaving out’ and ‘adding in’ objects or people or any thing, isn’t what we are talking here. Nor even atmosphere. While discussing talent, we are aiming at the experience of the painter. Not just visual sensation, but feeling. What happens to the core of his ‘artist’ inside when he sees a scene. So you need not run behind the scene but see inside. And find what you experienced what you felt apart from the ‘picture’. And the ability to fathom this, and go beyond the need to transfer ‘picture in front’ to the paper in your capacity ...like said earlier 3D to 2D; To paint the ‘non obvious’ without making any deliberate effort to paint the non obvious. To paint the mundane beautifully and not avoiding the beautiful also.

To paint what is beautiful is easy and also tricky. Its easy to ‘transfer’ what is already beautiful and feel happy. And its also easy to shy away from it as its so low brow. The trick is to paint what lies beyond the surface. To paint the beauty of the beautiful, in a ‘different’ way. To ‘guide’ the humanity…to serve them different facets .

And also to paint mundane is also easy and tricky at same time. Its obviously ‘not so obvious’. To be able to paint the mundane with surety of being different. But that ‘being different’ lies in the subject matter. So many ‘experimental’ painters of landscapes are prone to get in the trap of ‘painting that neglected parts’. They also just ‘transfer’ the mundane on the paper and feel experimental. By my own experience, it feels really 'off track' to paint a water pump or a letter pox or a window. The question arises what makes you paint and how you translate that feeling on the paper.

So the talent lies in painting your own experience. And that is ‘different’ than mass produced painting …. Its an indication of talent. An ability to see the things with a different eye and with intelligence or feeling and convey it with enough skill. All with requisite measure. And talking about mass produced... prolific output of an artist is NOT an indication of talent. One can churn out large number on each holiday, but without substance. Will talk about this later :-)

So somehow, it seems that ‘talent’ is God gift. Well, yes. And every individual has talent. But very few has talent for ‘landscape’ painting. And for each art there are only few ‘talented artists’. And its true for all walks of life.

As we are talking about landscape, the specifics come in picture.

Basically with all the talk till now, we only deduce that ‘talent’ lies in not painting the ordinary stuff in ordinary way. It’s a knack of being different without making a ‘circus’ of art of landscape. It’s the grace which endows one with not only skill, and perseverance but also thinking ability and guts to brake the shackles of norms and traditions with the one divine input, vision. That grace.... what is usually called as 1% inspiration ..... is talent.