What is 'not' a contemporary landscape?

Now a days we find many skillful watercolour landscape painters calling themselves 'contemporary'. Many other genres also see this trend. Calling oneself 'contemporary' is laudable aim. But it become a little laughable for a few, who are actually contemporary in their art. So the reason to discuss this.

Art many times does not go by the dictionary meaning, which defines contemporary as that of current times. A date on a landscape by default does not define it as contemporary even if it is painted today! Nor it is decided if the artist is young or not. Contemporary , though not exactly defined and assumed to be non academic, need not be abstract most of the times. An artist with contemporary outlook will not be a continuation of the past traditions, realistic or abstract, in any manner what so ever. Any manner means... style, subject or composition... and  also in 'thought'.

A landscape artist is seldom contemporary. Many assume painting cityscapes make them contemporary. Nothing can be farther from the truth. He/ she should be first, not a follower of any school of landscape nor any past master artist who has since himself became a school. The master may have been a contemporary but surely his followers are not. A contemporary landscape painter will not be in awe of any master painter , at a risk of being labeled 'rebel or irreverent'.

Then as far as style is concerned, contemporary landscape may be a representational but definitely not 'academic' or as i said earlier 'following any school/ method/ tradition'. After advent of photography it should have been the landscape, which changed most. But sadly it seems it has changed the least. Harping on traditions of impressionists, and purity of watercolour methods, landscape painters have stuck in a time wrap. And sadly few of them delude themselves as contemporary by way of recognition they have achieved all over. Most of city landscape painters still assume painting monuments and heritage, colonial architecture of the city, as prime aim of the landscape/ cityscape. How many aim to paint modern surroundings?

And painting modern locales will not suffice too. The technique and skill having primacy and beautiful depiction of the scene is the aim; then rest assured it is traditional landscape of a modern scene. Contemporary landscape if not thought provoking, should at least make a comment on modern life which goes with modern city. Even villages are not modern. But we in India still go after the age old ideas of beautiful village scenes of bullock carts as the thing to paint in a landscape. If a modern city scene of Mumbai seems languid like that of era of British raj, then how it is contemporary? Maximum thinking is done in terms of skill and rendering and at the most capturing the light... skillfully. Just like those from last century.The stress, the rush and madness or the comforts of the modern life, seldom seen influencing the air and light of the landscape.I am not saying that painting all out 'conceptual' art is a must. But landscape has to change for it to be called contemporary.

If the composition of the landscape still adheres to the rules formed in calm quiet life of eighteenth century, like rule of thirds, and center of interest, how it will ever show the chaos we live in? We walk the street talking on mobile and chatting on whats app and then paint nostalgic pretty pictures the way artist who used to send post cards would have painted? And mind you, they are not even dreamy landscape. They are not some thought inducing Utopias, but plain outdated postcards.

Any extension of the past, and supplement to the original is just that. A part of tradition. And when landscape painter who is out and out traditional, calls himself as 'contemporary' who is to be blamed if he sees others smiling or smirking?

What is this 'imagination'?

The basic quality that will differentiate 'normal' realistic landscape painter and one who has broken the frame, is imagination. All discussion about thought process will come to nothing, if painter lacks the imagination. Now let us understand what we mean by imagination. ( Those who have it need not read further). It is not only visualization. Visualization is more in the realm of illustrating or depicting. What you have seen before or based on your previous visual stimuli, you can 'recreate' a picture which provides visual idea to the viewer. And in this exercise reality is the boundary. What you visualize should seem 'real'; not just plausible but also possible. A skillful landscape artist may visualize well. He/she may be a better painter than one who can just reproduce. Painter who reproduces from the spot or photo, may even deviate from the scene, yet she is dependent on the source for material. In many our previous discussions, we have gone in various facets of basic copy vs inspired deviations. All said; they all are still interpretations.

Visualizing goes a step further but still it remains somewhat inside realm of depiction . And painter who visualizes a scene need not and should not keep anything unsaid. i.e. to imagination. and we all say this often " don’t consider your viewers as fools, they have got some imagination!" Well said. It is quite obvious and taken for granted quality, in viewer of abstract and conceptual art. And this 'required' quality of the audience of those genres, give them somewhat exalted status of serious and evolved genres? Where did landscape go wrong? Or is still going wrong?

First, though many landscape painters in India do talk about poetic quality and lyrical feel to their works, (and matching Indian poets in praising each others like in kavi sammelans) they do show evident lack of imagination. They are like 'tukbands' who revel only in wordplay.. the real quality of poet is absent....that of imagination. I am not talking of landscapes of Mars or some fantasy world. Please don’t misunderstand. Imagination which we expect on the part of viewer, will merit its existence, only when artist shows them in her paintings. And this imagination is of all things out of area of depiction n skill. Dazzling and creating awe/ questions, about brushwork n technique is not challenging his imagination. The viewer will get dazzled this way, entirely due to his lack of knowledge of this field or her lack of exposure to similar other paintings. Few times after he has seen such works, there is nothing to imagine.. study may be, but surely nothing to imagine.

So what is this imagination? Try to imagine! It may be about radical composition or play of shapes n forms. It can also be of impossible angel; impossible at least in normal ways. Or while taking help of known realist forms and objects, showing a rebellious way of expression. Rebellious not only in choice of material, colors and subjects, but also in touching many of boundaries. Either in minimal rendering, distortion or simplifying and still making it mystical etc etc. But imagination does not include imagining someone's thinking; and definitely not guessing someone's skill n technique. That may be an attempt to copy or 'get inspired' or at best reverse engineering. But not imagination! Imagination comes out of your own inner journey yet remains plausible for others to think; as we are after all realistic painters!

Still if you are not able to fathom what I am blabbering about, then you may not have that quality. And yes. All of us, don’t have that ability. All adults. Children have that by default. But in growing up we lose that somewhere on the way. And that made this Marathi line famous... to preserve the childhood inside in adult life, is the motto of a poet :-)

Spontaneous and casual

While painting on location, i have been watching fellow watercolour painters. All on locale painters have an ideal, or many idols. And in the awe of the idol or following his/her ideals, one develops a way of painting.

I am not talking here or visual composition nor skills and techniques. It is the way or whole action part of painting. And in that, artist yearns for that fleeting quality of spontaneity. One sees other senior artists, painting with gusto and some, as if they are in trance...lost in their own inner worlds. They have heard stories or anecdotes, of talented geniuses of finishing a painting with a dab or careless splash! And so there is a yearning to paint something which will be spontaneous!

And here lies a question. Why is that? This longing for that celebrated spontaneity? Why pine for that touch which is called careless yet talented? And i see that yearning, in many painters who have not 'that' in them and still long for it. Hence i will like to warn them here. No intention of being a teacher or guide et el. Just that like various levels of skills and talents, are part of reasons, in creation of different types of landscapes, they make different types of artists too! Spontaneity cannot be cultivated. It is either there or it is not. And i also see painters mixing up spontaneity with talent. It is a type of talent, a grace, but there are many different talents!

Why this warning; one may ask. Because it brings out something, which looks like spontaneous but it is actually something else. Casual! In that yearning for a dash, i have seen many artists who are blessed with many other talents, messing it up. Some are having enormous patience and dogged perseverance, but they run after that spontaneous splash! And some are more of thinkers, who will be able to think something new, after observing the locale for a good amount of time... will rush through to compete! One drops one's individual approach and then what he/she thinks as spontaneous is halfhearted messed up speed work or plain casual. He gives a unwanted 'bold' wash which is not 'his'. Or she will paint casual dots and dashes, which may look effortless to herself, but are completely thoughtless.

On a subconscious level, certain artists think in splashy way. His 'vision' , which we have been discussing, is bold on all fronts. He or she may be incapable of meticulous built up work for all we know! Spontaneity excludes thinking on conscious level. Even the thinking, that i will paint this in a spontaneous way, is not there. Any dash, or a dot , which is not coming from painter's individuality will be obviously 'not thought'. Or worse... foolish.

Only thinking here, which he/she was required to do was, is this dash/dab/splash/wash is coming from within or being forced/ put on? It is better to think for those precious milliseconds, before each dot/dash than to go astray!