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 :-)
