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.....