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.