jamini Roy

Well, not a clear photograph... but claimed to be a Jamini Roy...
And even if a fake, a great 'landscape'....

Showing off!!!!!

Recently an artist friend, an abstract painter, on my invitation came to see my latest works. I say works, because as per mutual understanding in very beginning of our discussion, the word landscapes was dropped. He is a very thinking artist and refreshingly unbiased to 'realistic' form of paintings. He gave me a lot of food for thought and reason to introspect on this whole business of SHOWING YOUR WORK.

We all show our works in exhibitions and its imperative for an artist to show his work. My master always says each work finished has a right to be exhibited. Whether we do this or we can exhibit all our finished works, is a different matter and its a matter of choice for the artist. Exhibitions are part of journey of a painter to grow, earn and in rare cases earn renown. I say rare cases, as getting a few hundreds of friends to admire your work is misunderstood as renown. Fame is beyond this little circle and cannot be earned with your own efforts. Little publicity and fan following rather takes you away from real fame, which comes only when artist drops yearning for it. What we usually call fame is indeed wide publicity.

So exhibitions are part of our life. The subject here is not showing in exhibitions but showing to your friends and peers and patrons. We show to find out if the current theme or style or experiments are working out and gauge the response of the viewer. And more importantly to get feedback on fine tuning we need to do on current efforts. The final aim is to improve and go a notch higher when one feels that he has hit a roadblock and friends can help to go ahead. And few 'smart' ones will try to show their patrons not to fine tune but forecast the sales.

But all this are known facets and positives of this whole process. Now lets delve in the needs, reasoning and negatives. Asking one or two friends to come and see your new works, takes lot of reasoning. Usually positive aspect is to fine tune. And learn in case, the person is your master or senior. But does this usually happen? Looking at the whole act of showing your friends takes a different turn if it is showing off. And that is very prevelant in representational arts. Abstractionist is somewhat aloof to this lure of showing . Say it his pride or reluctance or plain whats there to show? The realist has much more to show.

What happens? We see in camps or tours or working in groups, the whole act of showing and seing each others works. What we are doing? Its seldom the same as showing to the master. We are doing many other things.

Competitive judgements and me too games... challenging and taking the challenges.... deriding and seeking certificates.... winning and loosing....

All these have a main thing common. The human nature to find faults and belittling others to make oneself bigger. It sounds harsh but if we really admit then this is the truth. We find faults and deride in others works and justify our own works when faults in them are shown. We justify that the fault is not a fult at all but experiment . And the one finding fault is not capable enough to understand so it seems as a fault to him! 

why not reverse the angles or positions? And if possible just go away from this act. Why not we search ourselves where we lack and where we can go ahead? We seek guidance of the master and search. Not basking in glory of claps or defending when claps turn in cat calls. We challange ourselves not others and we judge our works and not get judgements from others or give on others.

And attempts towards this has a great risk of getting wayward.  I have seen painters being very positive on others works , being 'constructively admiring' all the while expecting the same in return! All the while being on guard not to displease so that you dont get displeased! And all become each others admirers! Nothing wrong, as long as your aim is to win admirers and friends instead of improvement as a painter. HOW TO WIN AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE! All seem to have read such american books. Yes, i am making fun of the process. Not to say that the competitive derision is right but to understand the folly of it.

The need or yearning to show should stop at masters feet or your own heart!

The artist has gone through an experience. He has put his soul in that work.In fact it is painted through him not by him. When this understanding happens then he doesnt need to ask others. He 'knows'. That the work was being painted and he was a medium. He was not there or he just was a watcher who saw the whole process of creation. Why he should ask when he doesnt feel the pride of creating it? This is divine and surrender as Osho advoctes for creative people.

And one more facet . In words of Maugham, art is not like a seashell lying on the sea shore for anybody to pick up and admire. Artist pours it out at the torment of his soul and the viewer cannot be justified to comment till he has gone through it!!! Well, very proud and very private.

But both these extremes.... one of surrender and other of self confidence have one imperative qualification. It is for the blessed ones....van Goughs or Blakes!

For us, the crux lies in going inwards...seclusion. Be ruthless to your own works . Challenge yourslf. And leave others. Admiring others, expecting admiration in return is delusional. And criticizing others to make you feel greater is rather foolish.

And lastly one honest admission....I have not gone beyond any of these faults but its a food for thought.... for you, maybe to learn from where I have been going wrong and saw others on same path!!!

Experiment and gimmick

What is experimental and what is gimmicky?
When an artist starts becoming more creative and new leaves are sprouting he is bound to experiment to strech his capability in both execution and imagination. And then on showing them, reviews are bound to come. Reviews, comments and remarks....

What we are concerned here is not what people certify your efforts as, but what artist feels while painting and what he thinks of his finished efforts. All experiments at least for artist himself are new experiences and untrodden paths. He gropes in dark finding his steps. The experience is really thrilling. So all the while any honest experiment is going to be new innovative search. But the honesty is the main criteria. 

What happens in the end largely depends on this one major aspect. Are you true to yourself? The fine line of demarcation between experiment and gimmick isn't decided by peoples' choice awards. That is known to artist when germination of idea is happening. Am I honest?

He knows if he is experimenting to find or challenge himself or it is experiment for the sake of it! And 99 % of later cases it turns out gimmicky. It has no justification of yearning or search. It is not in competition with your own capability  till now... not to challenge your own standards but to dazzle others. It is not because of spontaneous flow of creativity but forced circus by which you expect viewers to be awed!

Ask if you thought of the idea to dazzle, to make a splash or the idea came into being out of dissatisfaction and yearning to go further. What viewers say isn't worth much for understanding this phenomenon.  Viewers may genuinely get awed and impressed if you execute well enough. Or they may find it gimmicky if your honest search lacks good implementation. .... if your idea lacks support of skill!!  So viewers many times may not know whats happenning.

But artist? A harsh look inside... a look back on the whole process will tell you.  If you were truely experimenting which dazzled later or you tried to make a big impression which though impressed all,  deep inside was a gimmick. Or it fell flat on its face despite good intentions and was labled gimmick? 

Or you are competitive to your peers? Me too game ....making you show your prowess of new experiment?  This is very base motive but sadly often seen. And this me too game will suck the painter into an abyss and though he may fool himself sometimes, the final result is complete loss of real search and experiment! The honesty which was talked about earlier also calls for being your own and not aping or competing.
Ask....

evolution

Landscape painter when graduates or evolves to higher maturity, he shifts to more serious genres. Means more thought provoking or more spontaneous!? It is usually abstract or conceptual art. Now we ask why? Why this transition and why subtle contempt of those who cant make this transition? Reasons seem obvious. Those who keep doing pretty pictures are from their work proving themselves mediocre thinkers and they are majority! Given due respect for skill, they most of the times show a lack of thought and more importantly imagination. And out of vast number of painters who go beyond this not many show this talent or yearning to continue with landscape... they graduate to other forms. And in my humble opinion it will be immensely helpful to art of landscape and other landscape artists if they continue experimenting in landscape. By their work they may help bring about landscape evolution! They owe it to landscape... like an alma matter. But scene looks bleak. Overall art world puts the blame on landscape not on artists. And they may not be wrong. Finally quality of artists decide quality of genre. Why we dont take up the challange? On thinking I find another trend. Many good artists paint two genres at the same time. They make great attempts at strides in abstract or conceptual and achieve great standards. Yet when they revert to landscape side by side, it is same stuff all others churn out. Or same repeatation of what they did before. One gets a feel on interaction that they have firm opinions. Landscape is beautiful this way. This is how landscape is supposed to be. Very disappointing! No one insists that you call abstracts as landscape, as few try to. But why people like Ram Kumar are so few? And why we idolize Turner but dont aspire to do like him? Not copying but paint as per our times what he did then? Because few think doing similar stuff now like he did then, is still revolutionary!  And finally art lovers are also moulded in believing in this myth and assumptions of what constitutes a landscape.... This is not landscape! ! A line commonly heard give a pride to artist but then those rare ones have to pursue and announce... this too can be a landscape!

Dos and don'ts of a medium

Who is the master? Who is the boss? The medium or the artist?
The all time debate in the representational arts is about discipline in relation to medium. The non representational or contemporary painters of all media give a damn about discipline. The belief or conditioning that each medium has its own way of methodology and artist should work according to that for better results is largely followed in representational arts. Artist should follow certain rules of each medium!???

This is new area for us to discuss. Till now most of writing was about landscape genre and do n donts pertaining to the art form. Now it is about medium and not genre. The traditional rules of watercolour handling... watercolour specifically as it is major media for landscapes. 

Watercolour has a unique character in comparison to any other media. More transparent n fluid than any other if you take both these characteristics together. And that makes it tough to handle... according to practioners of other media!  Any watercolourist will love this very character of the medium and vouch for the individuality it has and it gives to the work.

But is it so simple? The conditioning for ages which tells us to work with style which enhances these characteristics of watercolours is one of the reasons for. .. should I say lack of contemporaneity?  We all know rules against use of dark deep colours..especially black. And also against white. And on larger scale against opaque use of colours. Just like it is against use of transparent use of oils! 

Now let me clarify that nothing against following rules. And RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN is famous line which I will like to append with ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE LEARNT AND MASTERED THEM.

 Break the rules after you experience them and find them not satisfying your thirst.

So if one wishes to follow. ..good.  If other doesn't... also good. But the basic question is... who decides the course? DOES MEDIUM DECIDE WHAT AND HOW ARTIST SHOULD PAINT OR ARTIST HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW HE WILL LIKE TO USE THE MEDIUM? 
It is larger issue than breaking rules. Because if medium decides then artist is not free and then not only methods but sometimes subjects also come under dos n donts. And the question of breaking the rules come only when this issue of medium dictating artist comes into picture. 
I from my own experience can vouch for one thing. It is not the medium which makes this rules but majority of users who didn't try or played within limits. 
Be a friend of the medium and take it ahead with you as you search. Both will feel the journey fruitful!!!

Kaiko Tanabe.....

Andrew Wyeth.... Do i need say more?