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?