purity of watercolours

For a genre of landscapes, watercolours is a major if not the only meduim of expression. Be it on locale or in studio, a landscape painter will definitely consider watercolours as a contender. And in that context he also knows the inherent 'modus operendi' of painting in watercolours!

Let us question this whole process and what it means to final outcome.

Normally, while choosing it over , say oils, we have decided that it will be..... transparent, washes, leaving white and black from the palette and white of the paper is to be shown through. Regardless of individual styles, and method of working we all consider these rules as given. So the choice of medium is limited by these conditions and also the final outcome. This also means the size of the work will be smaller and palette 'fresh'. This also points to the prior conditioning of artists mind towards what and how of a 'watercolour landscape'.

In this blog we have questioned many beliefs in landscapes after we have began the work... means while we work! Now the question is of beginning and how it influences the work. We talk of 'purity' of watercolour medium and the 'rules' we have enshrined over the years. It is to be noted that watercolorists of other genres are not so rigid. With changing times, society has changed and so are surroundings. But we still seek out freshness and transperancy and flows. Does it not limit our expression from the beginning?

When we decide that all these 'rules' are not the yardstick of purity but our passion and spontaneity with which the landcape, especially on locale, is painted, then horizons expand. We say we paint the scene 'realistically' but we know that we can never reproduce the thousands of greens in one tree let alone the whole jungle! We insist on leaving white of paper in faith that it can reproduce the whites in the scene! And keen observation will show the hundreds of shades and intensities of white which are so different from white of the paper. And the famous disdain towrds black! Then how do we reproduce the darkness and how to go beyond 'normal' limits of contrast? This 'prescribed' contrast also results in non usage of white. And the most important law of transparency!

I always ask, who decides ? The medium decides how I should paint or I as an artist decide how I 'use' the medium to express myself? Do I use watercolour or watercolours use my skills?

The whole lot of traditional ides of choice of watercolours and inherent question of 'purity' needs to be challenged if we are to move with the times. Freshness not in colour paltte but in our thoughts and expression!

Inspiration from other genres

Till now we have discussed the question of stagnation and coming out of it as a landscape painter and same for the genre in general. And we also passingly mentioned the antipathy and little antagonism between two art forms , viz landscape as a part of realism and landscape as a part of abstraction. On larger scale it is the antagonism between realism and abstract and also between traditional with contemporary. The contemporary art scene is either disdainful or somewhat condescending towards landscape in any form.

In all this 'wars', how a landscape painter has to look at other genres who call themselves 'more evolved'? And to take it further, how any art form, if it leaves condescending attitude, can look at other art forms for inspiration? For that to happen, How to remain non judgmental?

Well, as far as my technique goes, firstly understanding inside that any art form is not bad and accepting that each genre will have great artists in some numbers, even if you are not tuned to that particular art form. i say 'tuned' as finding an art genre as 'not serious' or amateur, is because your consciousness is not tuned to it? And when we understand this, then we will search for greatness in that genre. For a realist who swears by beauty as a reason behind creation of art, any contemporary work, depicting negative side of life will not be 'good' or anything which tries to convey a message will be preachy! So first step is dropping these prior judgments and then finding positives. And mind you, in accepting the positives, there need not be any patronizing attitude!

What will happen? We are not in business of art criticism or appreciation courses. We are painters, and i assume more of landscapes. We are not looking at earning goodwills! Then? The new search outside our art form will give us something more.

As a painter of one specific genre even if not stagnated, we are constrained by ethics and more so by traditions formed by our and others' experiences. And like a vicious circle, these experiences in themselves are limited by prior ethics and rules. So many times being a practioner of one art, is bound to make us single tracked. In management terms the growth will be vertical, yet one dimensional.

Firstly try to understand the motives of the painter. If he is not realist then his motive will not be a depiction of a 'thing' however large or small it may be. If not a thing then idea? So we may try to gauge the idea he was behind and what joy he was seeking or what he wished to convey? And what reaction he wished to elicit from the viewers of different kinds. It may not help us find a new prime motive for our landscapes, but it may help us in trying them alongside painting a scene? Say to shock or make viewer angry or think! 

Most of us are painting just 'beauty' of different types.Though beauty is an abstract idea in itself, we take recourse to paint a thing or a place 'full of beauty'! And that is usually expected from us! Then taking a cue from contemporary paintings,whether we actually start 'preaching' via landscape is another matter but that will make us think, about how to make viewer 'think beyond the beautiful'.

Secondly, landscape, especially in watercolours, are mostly seen to be not stretching  the limit of the media.... in terms of not only technique but related questions of composition and size etc. Abstractionist for that matter is not hindered by these. As he is not depicting a 'thing' or 'scene' he is not intimidated by the medium's 'imagined' limits. He goes beyond boundaries which we seldom think to cross. Mind you, i am not saying that all abstractionists per se are better in this, than all landscape painters. But watching the 'freedom' they take may inspire us to break our chains.

Landscape has also norms of composition with all those golden points and division of spaces. Mondrian had no norms, neither Giatonde, the Indian master abstract painter. As a painter of 'no -thing'... nothing, they could go berserk with composing the work. And where to put which hue or which shape is not decided by anyone or anything else, but their own mind and heart. 

And when we can think on those lines, we can go astray from the scene in front. The whole problem stems from our decision to leave decisions in others' hands... be it the scene in front, which we only decide is 'the' reality or the norms which we decide are unbreakable!!!

If you a true landscape artist, anything... i say anything under the sun is 'above' land and  is candidate for being painted in your 'scape'.. if you decide! And for that, see masters of other genres, of course not to follow them if you wish to continue in landscape, but search the ethos of freedom they find in their art! And it is not that masters of landscape have not found their freedom; but we have woolly eyes who see what we wish to see in their landscapes, to suit our norms. We will 'worship' their greatness to accept our inability to improve. Or worse, find in their masterpieces, what we think is right and avoid seeing their freedom and joy!!!!

wonder ...like a child on a sea shore

We painters have a blessing to do work which gives us joy. Most others who follow professions of different kind, though earning lot more money, still envy us. They look upon us as some exalted beings. We see awe in their eyes when they see landscapes we make. In an exhibition we come across a plethora of fans, both genuine enthusiastic and some polite.

This brings us to a new topic. Reading the viewers responses. We landscape painters exhibit paintings of scenes and landmarks. And it evokes myrid responses. First of recognition and it is followed by admiration about skill of the painter. The admission of frailty that we cannot paint like you artists so we take photos. But unknowingly that kind of admiration is a criticism of picture postcards. I have dwelt lot on it. So.....

Second kind of response comes when artist creates what is beyond imagination of a viewer. He has seen that place and but is dazzled by uniqueness of the view and method and creative depiction by the artist. We have discussed that too in length!

What happens when the scene in the painting is not seen by the viewer in person or  say in pictures? If a painters goes to some wilderness? Or the most of the audience  hasnt gone there?

Well, mostly, the overall type of locale is known. So there is an association if not recollection. But are we advertising that place for tourists? And are we painting, say one more Himalayan hill station?

Many a times painter himself is first time visitor. And being a sensitive creature he is bound to be overwhelmed by the beauty of Mountains or valleys! It will grow on him day by day. While a normal visitor will be 'done' with mountains in couple of hours after a few photos here and there, artist will always be thirsty for more... at least a real artist is supposed to be! And this blog deals with that kind of painters, you are aware by now!!! And that awe and joy needs to be transmitted. For a painter each place will be new and different . Each place will give a different pang. Not just one more hill station for him!!!! And if he feels the heart racing.... that feel if there will be seen through.

One of the reasons we landscape painters dont paint different work in different place, is that we are many times tourists who also paint. We search different places not to find the joy of search and exploring but to find different subject. And off course different subject will make painting different. But in that we get the response of first kind or we advertise for tourism.

Do we induce the viewer to go for the joy we felt? Or to visit to feel that pang... the skipping of heart beat? Will the viewer rush there so he can also take some good snaps or will he admire the 'grace' you have?

 Wonder.... that feeling we had in childhood, needs to be alive and kicking for a landscape painter to be creative. Unless we don't get awestruck we wont paint a work of art. Are we as enthusiastic as a bank officer going and reaching his office or we are joyous like a kid reaching sea shore?

For landscape needs to be so dazzling, we need to search within....

thoughts after a long tour

Have come back from a long tour of Manali, Dharamshala and Dalhousie.

All these places in Himalayas have a vastly different scenery than Mumbai city where i reside. What are the thoughts when one leaves for a long painting tour and what are things we bring back?

There are certain obvious things we look for and some not so obvious.

A different place has a different scenery which will make any landscape by any artist look different than what he does in his own town or village. He may use different palette and different sizes and all that. A seashore dweller will run to mountains.

And there are more subtle norms. Each place has a individual soul and character which we aim for. The atmosphere and light of a place in Himalayas has to seep in to your work. Architecture also adapts to that atmosphere so does our works.

But all these thoughts do occur to any sensible painter of landscape sometime or the other, though not in as many words! But i honestly believe that landscape is not in the scene but in the mind and heart of the painter. Otherwise how can paintings from a same spot by different painters differ so vastly and two works by same painter on same spot differ too! And though spots do change there is a characteristic brand of each artist which shows through. So why we run to far away places?

Boredom of painting same city is obvious answer and obviously mediocre n wrong! Otherwise Russian artist Nicholus Roerich who after settling in Naggar near Manali, would have gone somewhere else after few years, say Mumbai!!! But he didnt and we run each year! To search? Then why not search inside? My honest answer will be to look for an impetus. A different locale will not only pose technical and timing problems which include sleep and food timings :-), but also of compositions and treatment. We all aim to make new breakthrough of some kind.

So i felt two ways to do this. One is to carry the compositional experiment you did in Mumbai to a vastly new locale like Dalhousie and try to paint those locales in that 'new' way. It will not only polish off rough edges in your new styles but also bring out new facets. And make you confident that your experiment was not spot specific. It was heart specific and inside you and not in a city.

And secondly when you visit a new place, search for new visual imagery on paper. When you encounter a different place and find a new compostion or maybe a technique, then go deeper. Find the thread which doesnt depend on that scenery but it depends on your understanding of landscape as an art form and bring it back. If you find a new path which leads you to your own backyard, your own studio, then the trip was worth it!!!

MOJO IN LANDSCAPES

Why one paints one genre or some genres and NOT other genres? Why we choose one over others, sometimes going to the extreme of deriding them? I mean, why one is that much in love with one genre so as to justify one's choice by proclaiming its supremacy over others?

Name of this blog writer is In Love with Landscapes.

What makes me so sure? Lets go deeper in this phenomenon of choice.

Why one chooses landscapes? I have dealt with this question passingly in all the articles till now. Now we may take a concentrated effort. Landscape as a genre is easy to 'find'. I mean, when one starts painting, as an art student or as an amateur or even hobby painter, landscape is foremost in the genres to be practiced as a 'study'. So one 'studies' basics of painting with landscapes.

The avid followers sometimes in advocating the case of landscapes say that landscape as an art form encompasses everything. It teaches you composition, colour theory and figures, object and overall drawing. What are they talking? Do they mean to say that landscape is study for all this? Or it is jack of all trade type? They may not in all earnestness mean this.

But it points towards somewhat this line of thinking. That it is a 'study'

What one may call 'submission work!”.

Then why one continues it? Many artists whom i have talked on landscape as a subject seem to have a two lines of thoughts. One group says it keeps their study continued and so they love that academic pursuit ... all the while making experiments in other 'serious' genres.

And some less endowed with talent or simpletons say they can paint them well and they sell! Does it mean if you cant do anything else then landscapes are there as last resort or spare wheel.

I have strong objection to both. There are people who paint landscapes their life's passion and they are real landscape painters. Art for art's sake and landscape for landscape's sake. It should not be chosen because of lack of choice, but out of free will and inner passion.

So who are landscape's artists? I sincerely believe and that is completely my own opinion.... that those who find their mojo in landscapes.... those who will drop anything else for landscape ... they are the real ones. They will paint different types and subjects, giving different dimensions to each subject, but not fearing that they may paint what may not be called a landscape. One will not bogged down by others understanding of that is called a landscape nor will he keep doing only those themes which are within realm of his technique and norms of painter community. One will bring in concepts, thoughts and weird compositions inside the domain of landscapes.

There are off course supremely talented ones... Michelangelo of each age and place... who can paint all genres with equal elan. Our discussion is not about those graced ones.

We are discussing the painters who 'concentrate' on landscapes with varied reasons. And the overall result of that. Landscape can be and should be a life journey for one who takes it out of passion and finding his mojo there. Not out of lack of choice out of lack of ability or understanding, finding it easy prey. And not out of sense of continued academic study. Both are culprits of continued stagnation of overall landscape scene.

Rather i would say, to fellow artists and art fraternity in general....

PLEASE DONT MEASURE LANDSCAPE BY THE YARDSTICK OF THE AMATUER OR ACADEMIC STUDY SEEKER.... MEASURE IT BY THE WORK OF THOSE WHO FIND THEIR MOJO IN LANDSCAPES.....

what and why one needs to exhibit

We all exhibit our work or yearn to do so sometime. Exhibiting solo is a test . Of where we stand and what is society's perception towards us as painters. So one takes a lot of efforts in exhibiting... and in what he exhibits.

And most important thing in all the numerous whats, is coherent theme. Solo show by an artist should not and need not look to exhibit his virtuosity in all the genres or subjects. We many times see in solo exhibitions all conceivable landscapes one can think of. and here we need to discuss what means a coherent theme.

Any exhibition can have a synergy on two counts. One is thought or subject. Second is style or execution. Now we all know unless major shift occurs, an artist has his unique style of painting. It is nurtured over years of practice. Unless one tries to show off, via mindless variations in skill, one is bound to see a definite style in one artist's one suite. So unless quantum leap is seen stylization is not enough justification for being called a breakthrough factor.

Granted! So the real question, especially in representational art like landscape, is subject or theme.

Now most of the lot, misunderstand this. Painting landscapes on a theme is a bigger phenomenon than going to a place and paint pictures to record. We are not just tourists. Please don't misunderstand. It is really essential for a landscape painter to visit places for on locale paintings. But not like tourist taking snaps, we claim to paint WORKS OF ART. Many a times the clan of landscape painters get derided for this record keeping. ...picture postcard painters!

So whats the way out? It is not the question of just theme which is blatantly far fetched sometimes! And many times too flippant. Series of painting of houses in coastal India! It is too cliche even to call it a theme. Then what is it? Theme to be considered such, should need much more depth and rarity.

First, rarity. What you are considering as a theme for a show needs to be 'not so common'. It should have an element of rarity or even surprise. What is seen every now and then should be abstained.... even if you may be doing the greatest job of it. Even what you normally do maybe a taboo. Theme should show that you took effort not only in execution but also thinking, conceptualizing and even researching. When you do a series on a place it should be more than just a record album. It should show your individuality and way of seeing...your vision. Hundreds of painters may have visited a place like Jodhpur or Manali, you need to be different. And also different than the way you may paint your own city! The paintings should not be different because the buildings and location were different, but because you were different!

And then maybe second line..thought. Elevate landscape from mere pictorial and make a statement.... of intelligence or experience. Your perception which is accentuated by your thinking. Like writing essays or criticisms. Not just subjects but concepts. Not just people and houses but ideas.

Why you chose to visit this place? Because it suits your type of painting or you are searching for impetus to do something new? Why you chose a subject becuase you feel affinity or frustration to that throughout your life? Or you know you will just paint it well like every time?

And one word of caution. Dont go overboard. It is good to search new and experiment. But as my master says, painting exhibition is not a circus... dont be a daredevil. People need to appreciate but dont try to dazzle!

Saturation And stagnation

We use these words quite frequently and like synonyms. But knowing the difference and how it influences our artistic journey are points to ponder.

Though this is a forum of discussing landscape this topic will be covering whole gamut of creative stagnation. When one creative person stagnates and when he feels saturated? If one notices, stagnation is usually found out by viewers, as the artist in the beginning at least, misses it. And if he does notices , he will come out that very moment.

Saturation, by comparison, is easier for artist to come to know by himself. Saturation, as per my opinion, is lesser of the two problems. Any artist will feel saturation point in his career, some day or the other. And many times in his graph he will find himself hitting that mark and again going ahead. Basically it is a feeling where one feels 'bored' or 'overworked' while doing a similar body of work over a period of time. I for one, get this feeling when working on an exhibition on one subject, and am nearing the completion of the work on that theme. And way out is easy. Either you 'think' and find new ideas or just take a break. Usually the more creative minds will find 'ideating' a better approach. Normally 'taking a break' will lead to misleading yourself as 'rejuvinated' if you are going to start doing same stuff again.

And working over years on same type of work, without any feeling of saturation and without searching for new ways of expression, will finally lead to stagnation. Please dont conclude that saturation is precursor to stagnation. They are not always related. Stagnation is more subtle and a painter will live all his life without even finding it out that it has happened. And one is not always lucky to have people around to 'bluntly' say it. I say 'bluntly' because for a creative person, however gently or politely one tells him, 'stagnation' is the most dreadful thing and many a times artist's hurt ego will blantly deny. And on the other hand we also see a subtle pride sometimes, when artist claims himself that he feels saturated by certain theme or genre, as it indicates 'lot of hard work'!

Why artists stagnate?

It is a subject of introspection and meditation, if I may use the word.

One may be told the overall general scenario but the real roots are for each one to find out himself.

Lets go in generalites.

First, successful formula. Well, we all know this as we all sometime in our life fall prey to the lure of sale and fame. No need to say more.

Another point is confidence or lack of it. After years of 'practice' one gets used to what he is doing, like a craftsman. But then creativity calls for higher dedication and will to challnge. So this question of confidence has two edges. Confidence of doing what you have been doing all your life. You gain confidence of doing a 'good work' each time each day... any time of the day! And one goes on and on, without feeling saturated and without understanding 'stagnation'... churning out work after work and selling it! The confidence of doing each work 'successfully' is a curse for any artist.

And few who get a feeling, are lucky ones. But also unlucky in not having the confidence of searching new. Previously I have written about 'how to find something new each time'. Well, those without confidence will be better to work on that aspect.

Then another sub aspect of sales is market dynamics. Art has become market whether one likes it or not. And I myself was once told by a gallerist dealer that experimenting too much is 'risky' for the business. And they are looking for artists doing a similar kind of work over the years!!!

What does it say? Well, it says , maybe it pays to be stagnated at one style or theme for years???

And few more reasons which I will bundle together. Self satisfied , unintelligent and plain incapable. And such people are found in all walks of life . So they are bound to get stagnation anywhere in any field. But why deride them? In Moon and Six Pence, a novel on Gaugin by W Somerset Maughum, there is a beautiful line.

In any other field, if a man is mediocre he survives and earns enough for bread and butter. But in arts he will starve.

Now before anyone attacks this statement, lets understand it is said about artists in last century and currently only those who struggle to eke out a living by being a full time painter. Things have changed. One can earn well without complete reliance on selling paintings. But that has caused further wooling of eyes when one reaches stagnation. Earning money from other means sometimes nullifies the trembling inside and resultant search. And we are discussing on this forum, problems of creative artists and 'not so serious' ones may not indulge themselves with this fear of stagnation.

And many also feel that art for arts sake is the way. While sounding noble, its a way to delude about paucity of hard work and talent. It sounds very Van Gaughish, but its a highway to stagnation when the reality is different. A whiff of sales opportunity opens up all wools on the eyes. And art for arts sake is kept aside for paintings that will sell in market!

Anyway, lets not get into who cannot or dont wish to come out of it. We are discussing who 'wish to know and come out of stagnation.' And both are problems without a clear generalized solution. Knowing is somewhat general problem and overall view of your body of work will tell you the truth.... disregarding the sales figures! A plain question of what difference, what new, what progress, what search I have made in my painting over the years will be enough. A fair and ruthless answer, either by yourself or some noble 'blunt' friends will tell you. If one can digest the fact that he indeed is facing stagnation, then the question of coming out will answer itself. Mostly admission of your stagnation is first and major hurdle in coming out of it! And admitting that you are stagnated will tell you what you should not continue and that will create a need to search for new.

And believe me, we all will think that we are not stagnated and this problem is for others. Frankly, a rare breed who never stagnates, will be a light to others, will not even know this phenomenon, let alone asking these questions. They will work diligently all their life, without any saturation, or doubts... like a certain Nicholai Roerich painting Himalayas all his life alone in Manali! If you ever feared/ doubted or have been asked about stagnation, then you are not part of that 'blessed' ones.