'Imaginary' landscapes on location

For long I have been saying that I dont consider myself an impressionist. And I also feel that the rebellion of impressionism is long past its ' best before' date.

But it is still a somewhat relevant in terms of landscape painting.

En plein air has its own charms. The ardent followers impressionists even today will swear by the rules of catching colour and light etc. Some others, who are evolved into other serious art forms, consider it as a study to go back to sometimes.

I have said all this many times. But I too, go quite frequently to paint on locale in Himalayas and all the way down to hill stations in Niligiri mountains. And I often get asked that if I am soagainst tradition , then why I want to paint on location at all! The normal answer in such cases, by many who are not traditionalists or those who paint landscape as study, is somewhat on the lines of, helping improving the 'serious' studio work. And I too agree with that.

Having said that, for me personally, especially in last couple of years, there is another need behind this effort. The effort and stress behind all this travelling has one aspect; that of memories, which for me, is more important than study or fun. The on location painting in my case is seldom at par with my studio work. The large chunk of my on location body of work seems rather unfinished or hurried. The size too is limited in terms of carrying capacity of my body and luggage. In studio, the size limit of artwork, is seldom so small.

Still last couple of years and maybe bit earlier than that I started moving away from reality, in terms of not just minimalist approach but in terms of existence of a place. Many of my viewers recently have seen, that not only my subjects and themes of landscapes are veering away from reality, the places in those are not real either. They are reminders of some places I visited and maybe even dreamt. And in studio with or without reference photos, I just paint that imagery which comes to my mind.

On location painting, seldom affords you the freedom to paint dreams :-).

Photos you started to work with as reference, can be kept away half way through the painting, but you cannot move away the mountains in front. But then I don't think that not being able to move the mountains and river is a problem. Rather sometimes it acts as a grounding factor, so my work remains in the realm of reality and doesn't go too surrealistic! The imagined landscapes gives one a freedom, to concentrate on composition a lot more that a realistic depiction or impressionist derivative of the scene in front. While with photos it is easier to just leave the source behind, it also might make the painted scene look improbable to exist.

That problem is not there, when you paint imagined landscape on location. And I am not saying this like some traditional painters who say about 'taking what you want' from the scene and leave what is 'not needed'. That is quite a cliche.

My attempt is to paint a composition which is somewhat like the scene I am sitting in front of. The composition may have been already lingering for days and the location was a perfect fit! View it only a base and paint whatever composition you wish to. It may seem like some abstract painter who claims nature as her inspiration. But it is not. The basic framework of the composition is similar to that scene. The colour palate too, may depend on that location. 

But I paint what I will paint. The scene is not ' a reality inspiring' me to paint an impression. But just a ground on which I have to keep my feet before flying and keep coming back in between . To rest maybe and more to.....keep my landscape grounded on the land!

"Coming back" to landscape

In the practitioners of landscape as an art form and especially in watercolour media, there are two types of painters. No, I am not talking here of other classifications, we have discussed before. Like, amateur and a professional . But those who are at home with landscape and watercolour; those who paint in this genre all the time. And those who paint this as a thing to paint, as a study; to continue what they learnt and enjoyed once.

The first type of painters of landscape are usually clear about their aims and needs. They may be utterly confused about techniques and materials, like all painters are in some way. But there is clarity and sense of purpose in their painting, They may be painting to sell, but they are clear about it!

The other type is one which I am curious about. Why they go and paint on locale landscapes. Yes. This kind of painter usually insists on on locale work. The full time landscape painter has usually no qualms about traditions. Many are quite at home while painting from photos and memories. But the painters of other representational/ contemporary art forms, when they 'return' to landscape, I personally find them confused. First mostly they still think of landscape as a 'study',which was submission topic in early years of art school. They still like it, but now 'maturity' has taken them to more serious stuff. So they paint landscape , totally split inside. Some feel like a grown up playing a kindergarten play. And they are not to be blamed. The whole conditioning they get towards landscape, the buck stops there!

Still some come 'back' to landscape painting . Insisting on location tradition and age old watercolour techniques as sacrosanct. Their 'maturity' does not make them see the truth that those 'traditions' were okay while really 'studying' the landscape. So I have seen what they paint is completely out of sync not only current trends in landscape, which full timers have brought about with their efforts, but also out of sync with their own mature level of painting achieved in their full time genre.

And it also brings in another level of guilt. Apart from doing 'study' work , they also find themselves inept in comparison to others. And blame is put on lack of practice! And in rare 'thinking' types, blame goes to the art form he practices full time. And his usual media of choice, which is not watercolour anymore. All that creates clouds in thinking and reasoning.

But all that is wrong blame game. It is the 'going back to study' feeling that is the culprit. When a person matures in real life, she matures all round. Not just in walk and talk and eating habits but in dressing, behaviour and most importantly thinking. A mature artist, who is a abstract painter now, should not 'go back' while painting lad]landscape. If she goes back, her landscapes are also doing that with her. In some measure, he dragging himself back to his student level!

So, whats the solution?. As far as I can see, while observing them; it is simple. Stop the 'study'! Rather bring the understanding you have come to, in your 'major subject', into your landscape. Bring in the sense of composition you have gained, an abstract artist, into the landscape. Bring in the feeling you try to capture, in portraiture, into the landscape. Bring in the experimental streak of a contemporary artist, to your landscapes.

All will benefit. He will as an artist, with his 'major subject ' also getting a bit of help with these experiments. Other full time landscape painters will be helped, while observing a non representational artist, tackling an art form like landscape. And finally my dear landscape, as an art form will also be better off!

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!

Need of going to any outdoor location

For a long while, ever since I became serious about on location landscape, one question was always back of the mind. WHY? Why we go to any location, rather than paint in studio from photos or plain imagination? Or memory? Is this insistence due to blind following of impressionists?

Not entirely, though it has a part. Impressionists revolutionized art world, but after some time, revolution stagnates in being establishment. Like communists! So it has been a while that landscape painters, especially in India, have not questioned themselves, on the need or compulsion of going  to a location. And irony is, even the contemporary artist, who look down upon old genres like landscape, insist that going to a spot is a 'must'. So let us ask, why we go to a certain spot and why that particular spot.

Many artists and groups of landscape artists, who go regularly for on location painting, some even weekly, think a lot about bringing in variety while choosing the spots.'Lets go to some hill station; enough of these sea shores'... etc etc. It brings different challenges and questions as a study of different scenes' flora n fauna; and change of architecture style with in city. Fair enough for a beginner. But what about people who have worked for years? Those artists, who are full timers, giving full dedication to landscape; do they also think on these lines? May be not. Yet they do seek different scenes and locations, to bring about variety and induce experiment.

So the question becomes clear. The variety and experiment depend on change of spot or change of vision of the artist? When I travel thousands of miles away from my big city Mumbai, to Himalayas, am I looking for that change in my work in that location? Or going to a river bank will change my work and make it very radically different from my painting of a city road? So what is the creativity of an artist? All these years I have been firm on one principle. That landscape is not an imitation of the nature or architecture . It is an interpretation, borne out of artist's inner search and vision she has acquired over the years of thinking. In essence, the scene in front is just a reference from which the artist has to deviate 'asap' and create her own visual.

But if this need of finding different and suitable locations is justified for the sake of bringing about change and new impetus, then what is all the talk of vision and inner search was about? Is it not the artist's yearning to create his own visual world away from the one already around? 

I think answer is somewhere in the middle.

Go around the world. Not to bring change, but for just refreshing your vision. How I will paint this particular scene, which will not only show some new thought in comparison to my previous works, but also nothing like I have seen before, of this locale by any other artist!

And more importantly, when I am a somewhat prolific painter in water colours and am going to stay at one location for a long time... what new inputs I have brought in my way of thinking? Mind you, way of thinking and vision. Common refrain, of working for few continuous days, of polishing the skills, does not apply to full timers. It should not apply to them as they must be painting full time; hence their skills are already polished and not rusted obviously!

So go around I will say.... keeping in mind that search is always inside and in thoughts. What we see outside is just a reference point!

Doubt

After a long gap, i am back. And this article will be different as i am in mood to share some questions before me. Am not asking for answers or advice but seeking to know if you also get these doubts in your thoughts and while you observe art world in general.

Practically everyday a painting happens. And that may be the case with many of us. Landscape painters who paint on a very regular basis; by regular i mean nearly daily and that too actual painting not other applied stuff, would have had these doubts.

What do i paint so that i don,t repeat myself even remotely?

Those who might have read this blog fully and thoroughly, will know that my philosophy about imitation. To repeat, i hate anyone copying other artists, alive or dead. But i detest any artist copying himself. And by copying i don't mean copying or repeating a particular work many times. Those who repeat or claim to be able to repeat, are not artist at all.

So how do i guard against repeating myself?

The more 'serious' art forms; i say this with irony and sadness that we landscape painters have made it a not-so-serious art form; can take shield behind the fact that those are non representational art forms. The abstract artist, though it is obvious to viewer, will be happy with little changes to a masters visual language and create his/her own. A conceptual artist may use a same thought or concept used by others and put it forward in a different way of expression and call it original, completely ignoring the fact that concept is real soul of that art not expression of it!

But things are not so easy for a experimental landscape artist; the one who doesn't want to repeat.

Each and every type of building, road, city or forest has been painted. And for many artists, especially in India who 'follow' schools of landscape painting, the expression part is also taken care of. So a house under a tree by the road or a heritage monument in a city for that matter, are painted by numerous artists in all ways possible in their each school. So if anyone wants to keep doing that and earn a living, like a clerk does in an office, doing same job for years, then it is his /her wish.

My question is for those who don't want to do that?

How does one artist create original landscape each time? Original in all sense, fulfilling all the parameters which we have discussed before?

I don't have a clear answer. Rather can i say, that it is not possible to put it in words? But one thing is certain. If the artist is aware and even asks himself before he decides to paint something; Am i repeating myself? Have i done this before. And if he is honest, ruthless to herself like she is to others; then he/she will find the answer without putting it into words.

But she has to remember, not to give justifications. Artist even when he makes himself aware will reason it out with oneself. Will justify that this time she will use different colours or different angle or different composition! So even different paper size! Each one of us thinks himself/herself to be an artist who never copies. We even lie to oneself!

So doubt. Keep doubting about your creative thought process and execution part too. Keep doubting if this work will actually come out as original if i execute it as per my plan? And on larger time frame, keep doubting if i am doing the same stuff again and again. Keep questioning oneself if i am a slave to a certain style/ method / subject etc.

An honest and sincere doubt about one's own work, like we doubt others' work very honestly, will stop you from any kind pf repetition. But remember, honesty and sincerity is the key!

Revolution vs evolution.

Among many anecdotes ascribed to Picasso, one is applicable to discussion we will have here. One rich woman got her painting done from Picasso and as usual he charged a big amount. The rich lady exclaimed, “ you painted this in 20 minutes!!!” Picasso is to have famously said, “ But my dear, it took me 20 years to paint this in 20 minutes.”.

Now whether Picasso said this or any other master; mind you it has to be a master artist to say such a profound thing so simply; it is a truth that art is not a practice aimed at a revolution but at evolution.

One of my dear non artist friend, was skeptical about my evolution as an artist over the years. I didn't defend myself that much, but it made me think. First what he meant by evolution and what exactly artist is looking for in his/her trajectory. Off course I came out of my sadness which arose from his remark by; maybe falsely; deciding that he meant a revolution rather than evolution. But leaving aside my personal ego clash here, we need to think about what an artist aims? And I need to admit from personal experience, and what all my friends always talk; it is a revolution one is aiming or dreaming.

Each artist, especially not so successful ones, always dream of that masterpiece or that new style which he/she will suddenly come across; that it will dazzle the art world at least,if not the whole world. At the least his circle? And it also stems from the fact that he/she is so sure of the God given talent he/she has, that there is no doubt that sooner or later the revolution is bound to happen.

AWAKE O PAINTER.... of landscape in particular too. There is no revolution happening. At least without any outside help which is more of marketing strategy! If we are to be honest and really wish to do justice to that talent we have in varied quantities, then we have to go in for the idea of evolution. Work, work regular and work with intelligence. I wont say a lot of work, which is also delusional many times. But with intelligence. And that aspect is more applicable to representational artist than abstract painters. But ironically we find it other way round.

A representational artist has his/her set of problems which are apart from the lack of gift; which is common and a separate issue. A representational artist needs to work on many things like not imitating and many others, which we have discussed before. But he has to be on guard, against hard work without intelligence more; especially when he is sure that, this is just practice for bigger thing coming after that revolution! He feels like a party worker, who may rule as a minister, once the regime changes!

No. She needs to work, think, introspect, criticize her work herself and work over mistakes and errors. He/she needs to see long term and be realistic about today and not assume that a change is bound to be there. More so when material success is not in sight. Rather he/she needs to assume that no sudden change will come and he/she will need to strive for improving his/her art... all the while knowing the world NOT that unfair as it seems!

All this psychological lecturing is not much to do with 'act' of painting per se, but with what happens inside the mind of a painter or any creative person and what may lead to stagnation despite working positively. So trudge the path with hope but leave aside delusions. Take care! God bless you the artist in you :-)

purity of watercolours

For a genre of landscapes, watercolours is a major if not the only meduim of expression. Be it on locale or in studio, a landscape painter will definitely consider watercolours as a contender. And in that context he also knows the inherent 'modus operendi' of painting in watercolours!

Let us question this whole process and what it means to final outcome.

Normally, while choosing it over , say oils, we have decided that it will be..... transparent, washes, leaving white and black from the palette and white of the paper is to be shown through. Regardless of individual styles, and method of working we all consider these rules as given. So the choice of medium is limited by these conditions and also the final outcome. This also means the size of the work will be smaller and palette 'fresh'. This also points to the prior conditioning of artists mind towards what and how of a 'watercolour landscape'.

In this blog we have questioned many beliefs in landscapes after we have began the work... means while we work! Now the question is of beginning and how it influences the work. We talk of 'purity' of watercolour medium and the 'rules' we have enshrined over the years. It is to be noted that watercolorists of other genres are not so rigid. With changing times, society has changed and so are surroundings. But we still seek out freshness and transperancy and flows. Does it not limit our expression from the beginning?

When we decide that all these 'rules' are not the yardstick of purity but our passion and spontaneity with which the landcape, especially on locale, is painted, then horizons expand. We say we paint the scene 'realistically' but we know that we can never reproduce the thousands of greens in one tree let alone the whole jungle! We insist on leaving white of paper in faith that it can reproduce the whites in the scene! And keen observation will show the hundreds of shades and intensities of white which are so different from white of the paper. And the famous disdain towrds black! Then how do we reproduce the darkness and how to go beyond 'normal' limits of contrast? This 'prescribed' contrast also results in non usage of white. And the most important law of transparency!

I always ask, who decides ? The medium decides how I should paint or I as an artist decide how I 'use' the medium to express myself? Do I use watercolour or watercolours use my skills?

The whole lot of traditional ides of choice of watercolours and inherent question of 'purity' needs to be challenged if we are to move with the times. Freshness not in colour paltte but in our thoughts and expression!

Inspiration from other genres

Till now we have discussed the question of stagnation and coming out of it as a landscape painter and same for the genre in general. And we also passingly mentioned the antipathy and little antagonism between two art forms , viz landscape as a part of realism and landscape as a part of abstraction. On larger scale it is the antagonism between realism and abstract and also between traditional with contemporary. The contemporary art scene is either disdainful or somewhat condescending towards landscape in any form.

In all this 'wars', how a landscape painter has to look at other genres who call themselves 'more evolved'? And to take it further, how any art form, if it leaves condescending attitude, can look at other art forms for inspiration? For that to happen, How to remain non judgmental?

Well, as far as my technique goes, firstly understanding inside that any art form is not bad and accepting that each genre will have great artists in some numbers, even if you are not tuned to that particular art form. i say 'tuned' as finding an art genre as 'not serious' or amateur, is because your consciousness is not tuned to it? And when we understand this, then we will search for greatness in that genre. For a realist who swears by beauty as a reason behind creation of art, any contemporary work, depicting negative side of life will not be 'good' or anything which tries to convey a message will be preachy! So first step is dropping these prior judgments and then finding positives. And mind you, in accepting the positives, there need not be any patronizing attitude!

What will happen? We are not in business of art criticism or appreciation courses. We are painters, and i assume more of landscapes. We are not looking at earning goodwills! Then? The new search outside our art form will give us something more.

As a painter of one specific genre even if not stagnated, we are constrained by ethics and more so by traditions formed by our and others' experiences. And like a vicious circle, these experiences in themselves are limited by prior ethics and rules. So many times being a practioner of one art, is bound to make us single tracked. In management terms the growth will be vertical, yet one dimensional.

Firstly try to understand the motives of the painter. If he is not realist then his motive will not be a depiction of a 'thing' however large or small it may be. If not a thing then idea? So we may try to gauge the idea he was behind and what joy he was seeking or what he wished to convey? And what reaction he wished to elicit from the viewers of different kinds. It may not help us find a new prime motive for our landscapes, but it may help us in trying them alongside painting a scene? Say to shock or make viewer angry or think! 

Most of us are painting just 'beauty' of different types.Though beauty is an abstract idea in itself, we take recourse to paint a thing or a place 'full of beauty'! And that is usually expected from us! Then taking a cue from contemporary paintings,whether we actually start 'preaching' via landscape is another matter but that will make us think, about how to make viewer 'think beyond the beautiful'.

Secondly, landscape, especially in watercolours, are mostly seen to be not stretching  the limit of the media.... in terms of not only technique but related questions of composition and size etc. Abstractionist for that matter is not hindered by these. As he is not depicting a 'thing' or 'scene' he is not intimidated by the medium's 'imagined' limits. He goes beyond boundaries which we seldom think to cross. Mind you, i am not saying that all abstractionists per se are better in this, than all landscape painters. But watching the 'freedom' they take may inspire us to break our chains.

Landscape has also norms of composition with all those golden points and division of spaces. Mondrian had no norms, neither Giatonde, the Indian master abstract painter. As a painter of 'no -thing'... nothing, they could go berserk with composing the work. And where to put which hue or which shape is not decided by anyone or anything else, but their own mind and heart. 

And when we can think on those lines, we can go astray from the scene in front. The whole problem stems from our decision to leave decisions in others' hands... be it the scene in front, which we only decide is 'the' reality or the norms which we decide are unbreakable!!!

If you a true landscape artist, anything... i say anything under the sun is 'above' land and  is candidate for being painted in your 'scape'.. if you decide! And for that, see masters of other genres, of course not to follow them if you wish to continue in landscape, but search the ethos of freedom they find in their art! And it is not that masters of landscape have not found their freedom; but we have woolly eyes who see what we wish to see in their landscapes, to suit our norms. We will 'worship' their greatness to accept our inability to improve. Or worse, find in their masterpieces, what we think is right and avoid seeing their freedom and joy!!!!

wonder ...like a child on a sea shore

We painters have a blessing to do work which gives us joy. Most others who follow professions of different kind, though earning lot more money, still envy us. They look upon us as some exalted beings. We see awe in their eyes when they see landscapes we make. In an exhibition we come across a plethora of fans, both genuine enthusiastic and some polite.

This brings us to a new topic. Reading the viewers responses. We landscape painters exhibit paintings of scenes and landmarks. And it evokes myrid responses. First of recognition and it is followed by admiration about skill of the painter. The admission of frailty that we cannot paint like you artists so we take photos. But unknowingly that kind of admiration is a criticism of picture postcards. I have dwelt lot on it. So.....

Second kind of response comes when artist creates what is beyond imagination of a viewer. He has seen that place and but is dazzled by uniqueness of the view and method and creative depiction by the artist. We have discussed that too in length!

What happens when the scene in the painting is not seen by the viewer in person or  say in pictures? If a painters goes to some wilderness? Or the most of the audience  hasnt gone there?

Well, mostly, the overall type of locale is known. So there is an association if not recollection. But are we advertising that place for tourists? And are we painting, say one more Himalayan hill station?

Many a times painter himself is first time visitor. And being a sensitive creature he is bound to be overwhelmed by the beauty of Mountains or valleys! It will grow on him day by day. While a normal visitor will be 'done' with mountains in couple of hours after a few photos here and there, artist will always be thirsty for more... at least a real artist is supposed to be! And this blog deals with that kind of painters, you are aware by now!!! And that awe and joy needs to be transmitted. For a painter each place will be new and different . Each place will give a different pang. Not just one more hill station for him!!!! And if he feels the heart racing.... that feel if there will be seen through.

One of the reasons we landscape painters dont paint different work in different place, is that we are many times tourists who also paint. We search different places not to find the joy of search and exploring but to find different subject. And off course different subject will make painting different. But in that we get the response of first kind or we advertise for tourism.

Do we induce the viewer to go for the joy we felt? Or to visit to feel that pang... the skipping of heart beat? Will the viewer rush there so he can also take some good snaps or will he admire the 'grace' you have?

 Wonder.... that feeling we had in childhood, needs to be alive and kicking for a landscape painter to be creative. Unless we don't get awestruck we wont paint a work of art. Are we as enthusiastic as a bank officer going and reaching his office or we are joyous like a kid reaching sea shore?

For landscape needs to be so dazzling, we need to search within....

thoughts after a long tour

Have come back from a long tour of Manali, Dharamshala and Dalhousie.

All these places in Himalayas have a vastly different scenery than Mumbai city where i reside. What are the thoughts when one leaves for a long painting tour and what are things we bring back?

There are certain obvious things we look for and some not so obvious.

A different place has a different scenery which will make any landscape by any artist look different than what he does in his own town or village. He may use different palette and different sizes and all that. A seashore dweller will run to mountains.

And there are more subtle norms. Each place has a individual soul and character which we aim for. The atmosphere and light of a place in Himalayas has to seep in to your work. Architecture also adapts to that atmosphere so does our works.

But all these thoughts do occur to any sensible painter of landscape sometime or the other, though not in as many words! But i honestly believe that landscape is not in the scene but in the mind and heart of the painter. Otherwise how can paintings from a same spot by different painters differ so vastly and two works by same painter on same spot differ too! And though spots do change there is a characteristic brand of each artist which shows through. So why we run to far away places?

Boredom of painting same city is obvious answer and obviously mediocre n wrong! Otherwise Russian artist Nicholus Roerich who after settling in Naggar near Manali, would have gone somewhere else after few years, say Mumbai!!! But he didnt and we run each year! To search? Then why not search inside? My honest answer will be to look for an impetus. A different locale will not only pose technical and timing problems which include sleep and food timings :-), but also of compositions and treatment. We all aim to make new breakthrough of some kind.

So i felt two ways to do this. One is to carry the compositional experiment you did in Mumbai to a vastly new locale like Dalhousie and try to paint those locales in that 'new' way. It will not only polish off rough edges in your new styles but also bring out new facets. And make you confident that your experiment was not spot specific. It was heart specific and inside you and not in a city.

And secondly when you visit a new place, search for new visual imagery on paper. When you encounter a different place and find a new compostion or maybe a technique, then go deeper. Find the thread which doesnt depend on that scenery but it depends on your understanding of landscape as an art form and bring it back. If you find a new path which leads you to your own backyard, your own studio, then the trip was worth it!!!

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.....

what and why one needs to exhibit

We all exhibit our work or yearn to do so sometime. Exhibiting solo is a test . Of where we stand and what is society's perception towards us as painters. So one takes a lot of efforts in exhibiting... and in what he exhibits.

And most important thing in all the numerous whats, is coherent theme. Solo show by an artist should not and need not look to exhibit his virtuosity in all the genres or subjects. We many times see in solo exhibitions all conceivable landscapes one can think of. and here we need to discuss what means a coherent theme.

Any exhibition can have a synergy on two counts. One is thought or subject. Second is style or execution. Now we all know unless major shift occurs, an artist has his unique style of painting. It is nurtured over years of practice. Unless one tries to show off, via mindless variations in skill, one is bound to see a definite style in one artist's one suite. So unless quantum leap is seen stylization is not enough justification for being called a breakthrough factor.

Granted! So the real question, especially in representational art like landscape, is subject or theme.

Now most of the lot, misunderstand this. Painting landscapes on a theme is a bigger phenomenon than going to a place and paint pictures to record. We are not just tourists. Please don't misunderstand. It is really essential for a landscape painter to visit places for on locale paintings. But not like tourist taking snaps, we claim to paint WORKS OF ART. Many a times the clan of landscape painters get derided for this record keeping. ...picture postcard painters!

So whats the way out? It is not the question of just theme which is blatantly far fetched sometimes! And many times too flippant. Series of painting of houses in coastal India! It is too cliche even to call it a theme. Then what is it? Theme to be considered such, should need much more depth and rarity.

First, rarity. What you are considering as a theme for a show needs to be 'not so common'. It should have an element of rarity or even surprise. What is seen every now and then should be abstained.... even if you may be doing the greatest job of it. Even what you normally do maybe a taboo. Theme should show that you took effort not only in execution but also thinking, conceptualizing and even researching. When you do a series on a place it should be more than just a record album. It should show your individuality and way of seeing...your vision. Hundreds of painters may have visited a place like Jodhpur or Manali, you need to be different. And also different than the way you may paint your own city! The paintings should not be different because the buildings and location were different, but because you were different!

And then maybe second line..thought. Elevate landscape from mere pictorial and make a statement.... of intelligence or experience. Your perception which is accentuated by your thinking. Like writing essays or criticisms. Not just subjects but concepts. Not just people and houses but ideas.

Why you chose to visit this place? Because it suits your type of painting or you are searching for impetus to do something new? Why you chose a subject becuase you feel affinity or frustration to that throughout your life? Or you know you will just paint it well like every time?

And one word of caution. Dont go overboard. It is good to search new and experiment. But as my master says, painting exhibition is not a circus... dont be a daredevil. People need to appreciate but dont try to dazzle!

Saturation And stagnation

We use these words quite frequently and like synonyms. But knowing the difference and how it influences our artistic journey are points to ponder.

Though this is a forum of discussing landscape this topic will be covering whole gamut of creative stagnation. When one creative person stagnates and when he feels saturated? If one notices, stagnation is usually found out by viewers, as the artist in the beginning at least, misses it. And if he does notices , he will come out that very moment.

Saturation, by comparison, is easier for artist to come to know by himself. Saturation, as per my opinion, is lesser of the two problems. Any artist will feel saturation point in his career, some day or the other. And many times in his graph he will find himself hitting that mark and again going ahead. Basically it is a feeling where one feels 'bored' or 'overworked' while doing a similar body of work over a period of time. I for one, get this feeling when working on an exhibition on one subject, and am nearing the completion of the work on that theme. And way out is easy. Either you 'think' and find new ideas or just take a break. Usually the more creative minds will find 'ideating' a better approach. Normally 'taking a break' will lead to misleading yourself as 'rejuvinated' if you are going to start doing same stuff again.

And working over years on same type of work, without any feeling of saturation and without searching for new ways of expression, will finally lead to stagnation. Please dont conclude that saturation is precursor to stagnation. They are not always related. Stagnation is more subtle and a painter will live all his life without even finding it out that it has happened. And one is not always lucky to have people around to 'bluntly' say it. I say 'bluntly' because for a creative person, however gently or politely one tells him, 'stagnation' is the most dreadful thing and many a times artist's hurt ego will blantly deny. And on the other hand we also see a subtle pride sometimes, when artist claims himself that he feels saturated by certain theme or genre, as it indicates 'lot of hard work'!

Why artists stagnate?

It is a subject of introspection and meditation, if I may use the word.

One may be told the overall general scenario but the real roots are for each one to find out himself.

Lets go in generalites.

First, successful formula. Well, we all know this as we all sometime in our life fall prey to the lure of sale and fame. No need to say more.

Another point is confidence or lack of it. After years of 'practice' one gets used to what he is doing, like a craftsman. But then creativity calls for higher dedication and will to challnge. So this question of confidence has two edges. Confidence of doing what you have been doing all your life. You gain confidence of doing a 'good work' each time each day... any time of the day! And one goes on and on, without feeling saturated and without understanding 'stagnation'... churning out work after work and selling it! The confidence of doing each work 'successfully' is a curse for any artist.

And few who get a feeling, are lucky ones. But also unlucky in not having the confidence of searching new. Previously I have written about 'how to find something new each time'. Well, those without confidence will be better to work on that aspect.

Then another sub aspect of sales is market dynamics. Art has become market whether one likes it or not. And I myself was once told by a gallerist dealer that experimenting too much is 'risky' for the business. And they are looking for artists doing a similar kind of work over the years!!!

What does it say? Well, it says , maybe it pays to be stagnated at one style or theme for years???

And few more reasons which I will bundle together. Self satisfied , unintelligent and plain incapable. And such people are found in all walks of life . So they are bound to get stagnation anywhere in any field. But why deride them? In Moon and Six Pence, a novel on Gaugin by W Somerset Maughum, there is a beautiful line.

In any other field, if a man is mediocre he survives and earns enough for bread and butter. But in arts he will starve.

Now before anyone attacks this statement, lets understand it is said about artists in last century and currently only those who struggle to eke out a living by being a full time painter. Things have changed. One can earn well without complete reliance on selling paintings. But that has caused further wooling of eyes when one reaches stagnation. Earning money from other means sometimes nullifies the trembling inside and resultant search. And we are discussing on this forum, problems of creative artists and 'not so serious' ones may not indulge themselves with this fear of stagnation.

And many also feel that art for arts sake is the way. While sounding noble, its a way to delude about paucity of hard work and talent. It sounds very Van Gaughish, but its a highway to stagnation when the reality is different. A whiff of sales opportunity opens up all wools on the eyes. And art for arts sake is kept aside for paintings that will sell in market!

Anyway, lets not get into who cannot or dont wish to come out of it. We are discussing who 'wish to know and come out of stagnation.' And both are problems without a clear generalized solution. Knowing is somewhat general problem and overall view of your body of work will tell you the truth.... disregarding the sales figures! A plain question of what difference, what new, what progress, what search I have made in my painting over the years will be enough. A fair and ruthless answer, either by yourself or some noble 'blunt' friends will tell you. If one can digest the fact that he indeed is facing stagnation, then the question of coming out will answer itself. Mostly admission of your stagnation is first and major hurdle in coming out of it! And admitting that you are stagnated will tell you what you should not continue and that will create a need to search for new.

And believe me, we all will think that we are not stagnated and this problem is for others. Frankly, a rare breed who never stagnates, will be a light to others, will not even know this phenomenon, let alone asking these questions. They will work diligently all their life, without any saturation, or doubts... like a certain Nicholai Roerich painting Himalayas all his life alone in Manali! If you ever feared/ doubted or have been asked about stagnation, then you are not part of that 'blessed' ones.

jamini Roy

Well, not a clear photograph... but claimed to be a Jamini Roy...
And even if a fake, a great 'landscape'....

Showing off!!!!!

Recently an artist friend, an abstract painter, on my invitation came to see my latest works. I say works, because as per mutual understanding in very beginning of our discussion, the word landscapes was dropped. He is a very thinking artist and refreshingly unbiased to 'realistic' form of paintings. He gave me a lot of food for thought and reason to introspect on this whole business of SHOWING YOUR WORK.

We all show our works in exhibitions and its imperative for an artist to show his work. My master always says each work finished has a right to be exhibited. Whether we do this or we can exhibit all our finished works, is a different matter and its a matter of choice for the artist. Exhibitions are part of journey of a painter to grow, earn and in rare cases earn renown. I say rare cases, as getting a few hundreds of friends to admire your work is misunderstood as renown. Fame is beyond this little circle and cannot be earned with your own efforts. Little publicity and fan following rather takes you away from real fame, which comes only when artist drops yearning for it. What we usually call fame is indeed wide publicity.

So exhibitions are part of our life. The subject here is not showing in exhibitions but showing to your friends and peers and patrons. We show to find out if the current theme or style or experiments are working out and gauge the response of the viewer. And more importantly to get feedback on fine tuning we need to do on current efforts. The final aim is to improve and go a notch higher when one feels that he has hit a roadblock and friends can help to go ahead. And few 'smart' ones will try to show their patrons not to fine tune but forecast the sales.

But all this are known facets and positives of this whole process. Now lets delve in the needs, reasoning and negatives. Asking one or two friends to come and see your new works, takes lot of reasoning. Usually positive aspect is to fine tune. And learn in case, the person is your master or senior. But does this usually happen? Looking at the whole act of showing your friends takes a different turn if it is showing off. And that is very prevelant in representational arts. Abstractionist is somewhat aloof to this lure of showing . Say it his pride or reluctance or plain whats there to show? The realist has much more to show.

What happens? We see in camps or tours or working in groups, the whole act of showing and seing each others works. What we are doing? Its seldom the same as showing to the master. We are doing many other things.

Competitive judgements and me too games... challenging and taking the challenges.... deriding and seeking certificates.... winning and loosing....

All these have a main thing common. The human nature to find faults and belittling others to make oneself bigger. It sounds harsh but if we really admit then this is the truth. We find faults and deride in others works and justify our own works when faults in them are shown. We justify that the fault is not a fult at all but experiment . And the one finding fault is not capable enough to understand so it seems as a fault to him! 

why not reverse the angles or positions? And if possible just go away from this act. Why not we search ourselves where we lack and where we can go ahead? We seek guidance of the master and search. Not basking in glory of claps or defending when claps turn in cat calls. We challange ourselves not others and we judge our works and not get judgements from others or give on others.

And attempts towards this has a great risk of getting wayward.  I have seen painters being very positive on others works , being 'constructively admiring' all the while expecting the same in return! All the while being on guard not to displease so that you dont get displeased! And all become each others admirers! Nothing wrong, as long as your aim is to win admirers and friends instead of improvement as a painter. HOW TO WIN AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE! All seem to have read such american books. Yes, i am making fun of the process. Not to say that the competitive derision is right but to understand the folly of it.

The need or yearning to show should stop at masters feet or your own heart!

The artist has gone through an experience. He has put his soul in that work.In fact it is painted through him not by him. When this understanding happens then he doesnt need to ask others. He 'knows'. That the work was being painted and he was a medium. He was not there or he just was a watcher who saw the whole process of creation. Why he should ask when he doesnt feel the pride of creating it? This is divine and surrender as Osho advoctes for creative people.

And one more facet . In words of Maugham, art is not like a seashell lying on the sea shore for anybody to pick up and admire. Artist pours it out at the torment of his soul and the viewer cannot be justified to comment till he has gone through it!!! Well, very proud and very private.

But both these extremes.... one of surrender and other of self confidence have one imperative qualification. It is for the blessed ones....van Goughs or Blakes!

For us, the crux lies in going inwards...seclusion. Be ruthless to your own works . Challenge yourslf. And leave others. Admiring others, expecting admiration in return is delusional. And criticizing others to make you feel greater is rather foolish.

And lastly one honest admission....I have not gone beyond any of these faults but its a food for thought.... for you, maybe to learn from where I have been going wrong and saw others on same path!!!

Experiment and gimmick

What is experimental and what is gimmicky?
When an artist starts becoming more creative and new leaves are sprouting he is bound to experiment to strech his capability in both execution and imagination. And then on showing them, reviews are bound to come. Reviews, comments and remarks....

What we are concerned here is not what people certify your efforts as, but what artist feels while painting and what he thinks of his finished efforts. All experiments at least for artist himself are new experiences and untrodden paths. He gropes in dark finding his steps. The experience is really thrilling. So all the while any honest experiment is going to be new innovative search. But the honesty is the main criteria. 

What happens in the end largely depends on this one major aspect. Are you true to yourself? The fine line of demarcation between experiment and gimmick isn't decided by peoples' choice awards. That is known to artist when germination of idea is happening. Am I honest?

He knows if he is experimenting to find or challenge himself or it is experiment for the sake of it! And 99 % of later cases it turns out gimmicky. It has no justification of yearning or search. It is not in competition with your own capability  till now... not to challenge your own standards but to dazzle others. It is not because of spontaneous flow of creativity but forced circus by which you expect viewers to be awed!

Ask if you thought of the idea to dazzle, to make a splash or the idea came into being out of dissatisfaction and yearning to go further. What viewers say isn't worth much for understanding this phenomenon.  Viewers may genuinely get awed and impressed if you execute well enough. Or they may find it gimmicky if your honest search lacks good implementation. .... if your idea lacks support of skill!!  So viewers many times may not know whats happenning.

But artist? A harsh look inside... a look back on the whole process will tell you.  If you were truely experimenting which dazzled later or you tried to make a big impression which though impressed all,  deep inside was a gimmick. Or it fell flat on its face despite good intentions and was labled gimmick? 

Or you are competitive to your peers? Me too game ....making you show your prowess of new experiment?  This is very base motive but sadly often seen. And this me too game will suck the painter into an abyss and though he may fool himself sometimes, the final result is complete loss of real search and experiment! The honesty which was talked about earlier also calls for being your own and not aping or competing.
Ask....

evolution

Landscape painter when graduates or evolves to higher maturity, he shifts to more serious genres. Means more thought provoking or more spontaneous!? It is usually abstract or conceptual art. Now we ask why? Why this transition and why subtle contempt of those who cant make this transition? Reasons seem obvious. Those who keep doing pretty pictures are from their work proving themselves mediocre thinkers and they are majority! Given due respect for skill, they most of the times show a lack of thought and more importantly imagination. And out of vast number of painters who go beyond this not many show this talent or yearning to continue with landscape... they graduate to other forms. And in my humble opinion it will be immensely helpful to art of landscape and other landscape artists if they continue experimenting in landscape. By their work they may help bring about landscape evolution! They owe it to landscape... like an alma matter. But scene looks bleak. Overall art world puts the blame on landscape not on artists. And they may not be wrong. Finally quality of artists decide quality of genre. Why we dont take up the challange? On thinking I find another trend. Many good artists paint two genres at the same time. They make great attempts at strides in abstract or conceptual and achieve great standards. Yet when they revert to landscape side by side, it is same stuff all others churn out. Or same repeatation of what they did before. One gets a feel on interaction that they have firm opinions. Landscape is beautiful this way. This is how landscape is supposed to be. Very disappointing! No one insists that you call abstracts as landscape, as few try to. But why people like Ram Kumar are so few? And why we idolize Turner but dont aspire to do like him? Not copying but paint as per our times what he did then? Because few think doing similar stuff now like he did then, is still revolutionary!  And finally art lovers are also moulded in believing in this myth and assumptions of what constitutes a landscape.... This is not landscape! ! A line commonly heard give a pride to artist but then those rare ones have to pursue and announce... this too can be a landscape!