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?
