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'.