use of references and photos for landscapes

Landscape is usually considered to be on locale painting genre. Now this needs to be understood. Why this need for on the spot painting?

Since the impressionist rebellion, painter understood mainly one thing, that he needs to paint what he sees. The earlier romantic period for example, was idealizing whatever subject was to be painted including landscapes. The followers of landscape were relatively less in number and they also painted a bit glorified view of the world. Beauty was so elaborately painted that it was sometimes looked aggressive. Impressionist showed us the beauty of painting the reality and fleeting glimpse with 'real' colours. The brain was pushed back and eyes came in forefront.

On the spot painting teaches many things to all artists from all levels of seniority and seriousness. The light and colours, the perspective, the conversion of 3D to 2D , and how to compose the vast reality in front on the small rectangle of the paper. The efforts to show the time of the day, the season, the sumshine and cloudiness all teaches one thing or the other. Even in cities the on the spot painting teaches a lot more than one may assume. Its not only the beautiful villages which are right material for excursions but also the bustling cities if you manage to find enough space and quietitude for yourself. The business of life and fast pace is really a muse to an artist with that liking.

So we all agree that landscape is better learnt on the spot. Then comes the question of references. Many a times artist finds it hard to get space at say a railway station or market. He chooses to do a key sketch, with colours if possible. We in india, don't have the real tradition like English, of doing travel sketches in sketchbooks, prefering instead to make drawings or rapid sketches. These preferences apart, artist feels the urge to put the view on paper and conditions are uncomfortable or even 'hostile'. So he makes adjustments and sketches.

And that brings us to the more modern phenomenon of landscapes in studio or from references  Usually all these years in all the exhibitions of landscapes, we see query on the face of the viewer esecially fellow artists, IS IT ON THE SPOT?

We need to understand this question and its intention and answers and motive behind them. And legitimacy and advantages /disdvatages of the painting landscapes in studio.

We all know most of us want to paint on locale but dont. We are condescendingly accept the sketch references but not photos used for reference. Sketches finally are done on the spot. Photos? They also are taken on the spot! We all know the larger works are not feasible to do on locale. And sometimes smaller too say, in vegetable market. But we see many times the question asked if there is doubt and apologetical answer or plain falsity from the painter regarding the reference .

Why the question and why the apology or falsity?

We have experienced many things while working with photos. I am keeping sketches aside because truely we all know its seldom done. Artist will rather paint full painting then and there, or take a photo. All of us, including yours truely have lied many times as having done a sketch while we all know that we had shot a photo.

Working with photos has a lot of disadvatages. First its a 'picture' in itself albeit by camera but a 2D picture. So the adventure of 3D to 2d is lost. And also the composition and perspective part. And photograph is still. It is tough for a beginner at least, to imbibe the flow and movement of the place from a photograph in comparison to live scene. Many times photograph tends to have different feel in light and colours part too. And most troublesome part for one who tends to paint on and on and on, is overworking. He doesnt know where to stop!!! Too many details creeping in from the photograph so it is somewhat difficult to eliminate things.

So, its agreed that working from a photograph is a not a suitable choice for many especially beginners and also advanced amateurs. But if you notice, all the disadvatages are not insurmountable. And they are of the skill level problems.

Firstly one who has a capacity for minimalism or has a knack of different angle of view, these problems wont arise. A minimalist will eliminate from actual scene and from photo with equal finnesse. And one who 'sees differently' will take the photo with that angle only. Coming to this, its imperative to take your own photograph. Its a taboo to use others' photos however great they seem to you. And even when the photographer is a friend and allowed its use! Afterall photograph is also a work of art and we dont copy others' works, do we?

So the arguement of the photo misleading doesnt hold true. As far as perspective and colours and light is concerned, one who wishes to paint his own thing and not 'depict' the scene faithfully wont find it a much of a bother. And frankly, the case of wrong perspective is based on the old fashioned idea of 'correcting' the 'illusions' in vanishings. Verticles have to be verticles! If one is intelligent, he will see that skycrapers do look tilted to naked eye too. So if one wishes to experiment then photograph will be an usefull aid for deviating from the reality.

But, all these are remedies for acquiring skill for working from photograph.

And for that, i from my own experiences over the years, will vouch for mixed approach. Working on locale is a must for a landscape painter as a riyaz. Complete reliance on photos can be detrimental for grounded studies.

And on the other hand it is stubborn attitude to insist on on the spot painting and taking pride in it. Especially when what is painted doesn't merit that pride.

It is the final work and its quality and maturity beyond the overt skill and technical mastery, that justifies the means. Work from photo or on locale, without keeping any insistance, just looking for bettering each time. Its better to paint a sublime work in studio rather than make a hash of things on locale. And if a certain painting has to be painted on location, then dont fret for the inconvineances of hot sun or rush around!

Enjoy!

simplification and minimalism

Bringing a “thought” into play in your landscape is rather a “modern” or “contemporary” way and is yet to be practiced by a significant number of artists. But another line which is largely prefered way of finding your own 'style' is on the path of visual and it is usually simplification and abstraction.

When one is planning a landscape looking at location - but not planning beforehand which brings out usually mediocre works- thousands of things and colours can be seen by the artist. In a jungle for a common man, there is green trees all around but for a painter hundreds of different hues of green and so many different shapes , sizes and textures in each tree. And automatically as the painter cannot replicate the whole, he chooses a few greens of his choice and few shapes of trees and gets done with it. Now that is not the simplification we are discussing here. Thats is simplification out of compulsion or plain inability if one may say so. Unless you are a photo realistic painter, this kind of simplification is normal way to do landscapes. This simplification is practiced without that much thought and who wants to paint each leaf anyways!

When a painter simplifies a tree or a building, he knows that the viewer has the ability to interpret its 'symbolism'. But lets go deeper. Usually all of us are adapt at simplification of each 'thing' in the work, each object, but the whole landscape looks a bit cluttered. We feel that many times after we finished. Or the painter may delude himself that he has painted everything simplified while putting lot of 'things' on paper! And some more intelligent will 'remove' certain things as 'it is not required”. Delete the unnecessary.

Ok. Quite smart thing to do. But why not paint only that much which is 'very essential' or 'utmost important' ? Paint only that much without which work will not be there!!! Instead of deleting, why not 'add' on the whiteness of paper what is most required for the work to come into being?

And we 'see' which object to put and which not to. But the moment you start looking them at objects a slight attempt of 'illustrating' the object 'properly' begins on a subconscious level. Artist may not even know it. So the key is consciously see only shapes , and see which are very necessary for the painting to happen. The 'details' of the objects are painted or indicated while we paint the 'objects'. But they can be indicated without painting 'exact' and  can we paint smaller sub shapes inside bigger shapes?

And same we can do with colours and lines. Only the most necesary colours...minimum required colours and minimum lines.

Frankly this is my favoured approach. Minimalist one may say. This can be a part of the answer to the question what is to be different in landscape? And this also requires a lot of thought process. Choosing the most essential may be the intention but in the flow of things, we usually paint, paint and paint. And mind you, its very addictive and self satisfying when you can paint with efficiency and  find pleasure. But the key is to be aware when to stop. An artist should know when to stop, is very cliched line. I would say artist, especially on locale landscape painter, has to know when he has to stop 'selecting more and more objects' for the painting.

Simplify to the extent that the viewer should be questioning what and where is the place. And when he fails to 'identify' the place we can hope that he will entre into the aesthetic aspects of the work rather than 'record' of the place. The viewer better be in awe of the outlook or vision of the artist than the ability.

And further you go on the path abstraction will happen.Abstract is after all painting the forms, colours , shapes, textures and lines. No identifying 'thing'. Even symbols may not be identifiable objects. But pure abstraction is not the aim for the painter of landscape here. This yearning for simplification is for the one who streches the imagination to the boundry of realism.... yet doesnt 'represent or depict'.

For abstraction in landscape ...for another day.

Role of thought depiction and its relation with visual

  Role of thought and relationship of thought with visual.

Painting is a visual art and landscape in particular is mainly visual genre. Painting over ages has evolved from aid to decoration to aid to social upheavals. Writing, both poetry and prose, has been a potent force as far as enlightening the masses is concerned and so also the dramatics n even dance. But painting was not that potent. It always towed the line of religion and establishment. But since the rebellion of impressionism and then Dadaism n pop art et el art became a avenue for protest and also expression of ‘thought. The deeper searching of human intelligence influenced and also vent out their discoveries in painting. The landmark works Scream, Guernica, and many works of Schille, Pollock, Dali and not to forget Picasso were search of an intelligent mind.

Conceptual art became happening in last few decades. Art which conveys a meaning and a thought but not a story as such, came in vogue. Art began to give and form opinions. They began movements outside their cloisters and in whole society. They began to get arrested or imprisoned like in China. It started guiding society not only to beauty but also to knowledge or understanding. And that created a debate and few questions for artists who dwelled in visual world. Was it the work or duty of art to ‘preach’ or teach? What authority does an artist have to say things which has nothing to do with beauty or visual language?

Well, any arts can be questioned in the same way.

I am not defending the right to ‘preach’ ....but why we should ‘teach’ that whether one should preach or not?

And that brings to the topic on hand. We have discussed the thought process, now let us discuss the role of thought depiction. Does landscape give a scope for depicting thoughts like conceptual works? Or does landscape wants to enter into that sphere?

The second way of asking seems more apt.

Landscape has ….. should I say, languished in visual for long. Well, contemporary artists have used landscape as part of their paintings, quite potently to convey their message but landscape, 'pure” landscape has shied away from bringing ‘thought ‘ in its frame. We have been happy to paint pretty pictures for too long. I know I am harping on this. But the evolution or revolution may need one front of thought depiction also.

One may experiment with shapes, and angle of views, and way of seeing things. One may paint ‘different’ subjects.... and mundane subjects differently.All of that is different paths of searching and all of them require thinking. And one may also paint landscapes which induce ‘thinking’ by the viewer. And for that the artist should ‘think’.

We paint what is around. We paint everything under the sun including the sun and beyond the sun too. Then why we leave out the ‘happenings’ and ‘events’ and ‘influences’. Why we don’t paint the change in the landscape around? The city landscapes are changing. Well, some will paint the modern buildings. Good enough. But will he be content to paint the skyscraper the same way he will paint a Victorian monument and feel modern? Does he give a thought to the ‘change’?

Let me say about my own efforts, not to boast but as an experience of a beginner. Decade back in my solo show in Jehangir art gallery, I exhibited a series of landscapes which were pairs or diptychs if one may call them. Each pair showing what Mumbai was a century back and what the same location is now. And my personal favorite was that of Khada Parasi in Byculla. All may not be aware of the location even today. But it’s a statue of a a parasi leader on a long pole. And hundred years back it was in a empty circle which is more of a ground or maidan in Mumbai’s language. And now you cannot find its existence till you reach bang under it as it is flanked by two flyovers and traffic all around. The progress of the mega polis!

Now that’s not a great example, I frankly admit. But can we paint a landscape of progress?

And lets discus the question of Why landscape need to do this ‘thought depiction’?

Well, ones choice. It is one way to grow out of the rut, I may say. As long as an artist questions himself and his methods and his current work output then there is hope for improvement. And some may say going astray! Well isn’t it a risk and also the charm of searching? And why we frame ourselves by limits? Agreed, landscape is visual like any other painting and nobody denies that it will remain so whatever you paint. Even ‘intelligent comments’ on today’s times will be ‘painted’ in visual only. Can we add a bit of spice? Can we enlarge our realm?

Can we paint the barren fields with want of irrigation instead of green crops? Can we indulge ourselves with factories in semi urban areas finishing its ‘ruralness’ without making ‘revolutionary’ works? On the other hand can we also paint the ‘betterment’ of the same village without romanticizing the bullock cart age?

Some day the Bombay Stock Exchange building will be of ‘old’ style and all the Victorian monuments may be extinct. Then do we landscape painters paint the ‘old little’ stock exchange building as it is so romantic? Or do we paint the feeling we have about that skyscrpaer now? When it is still what it is meant to be? Do we paint what importance it has in our world?

Landscape has long been dogged by 'romanticizing'. In the name of painting the beautiful we have hardly given any thought to 'thought' or 'feeling'. We know that the sunsets are beautiful and colourful. Do we ever think of painting the colours instead of the colourful?

And we also know the railway stations are good subjects which allow us to show our skill. But do we show the 'life' at the station? Very seldom they show the movement.

And sometimes we add human presence, in say while painting a forest, without thinking if, in painting of a forest, is it 'right'?

Basically the 'right' thinking is the key. As said earlier most of our thinking is either too shallow or blatantly wrong. Rather than inducing the intelligent viewer to think about what we are trying to convey, if we are trying to in the first place, we allow them to mock us for 'non thinking' or naivity.

So, lets 'think' and make the 'viewer also think'.   

We have discussed skill till now in detail. Skill is what makes one adept at his own craft or work. It makes him efficient but not quite an artist. Skill makes him better worker and he brings smoothness in others lives but beauty? That is where art and talent or art comes in.

Art, may it be any art form, music to painting, is a most non essential yet with a capacity to have profound effect on human life. It maybe preposterous for logical minded intellectuals but arts is what separates man from other beings. World is full of art and beauty but we the humans are blessed with capacity to appreciate it..... in trees and in tigers who themselves have no idea that they are beautiful. So the talent for art is what separates humans from others.

Now, the ability to ‘create’ the art or works of art is what separates the human society. On one side is large sea of humanity who yearns to make their life beautiful and on the other side we are their servants, artists. One may take objection to the word servant, so we may say in service…like missionaries of charity…missionaries of beauty. The miniscule minority is in service to use the talent with passion to serve and make their life beautiful and sometimes guide them.

Now who forms this minority? Who has the divine grace and power to serve the humanity? Ones with talent. So lets discuss talent with specific focus with our dear subject of landscape painting.

As I often have said, we see a plethora of landscape painters. Those who paint landscapes with skill. Why landscapes is so popular ? Well, being a little harsh lets admit it’s a subject which requires least amount of effort to produce a quantity if you neglect the uneasy question of quality. Go on any free day, and paint a pretty picture, in true English tradition. And watercolours are so easy to paint plainly if, again the uneasy question of quality and depth is neglected. After all watercolours were first called tinted sketches. Simply painted sketches or studies for doing larger works in oils. Thanks to the fellow Turner that we can call them paintings now. And is considered a serious medium. And to be fair, the landscape itself in any media was more of backdrop till Impressionists.

So lets focus. Talent. It’s a magic potion that separates ‘artists’ from ‘painters’ of landscapes. Can we define the word talent or explain it like skill? Well, we need to be poetic to explain whats beyond logic and what is in realm of esoteric or occult. To paint a village scene with bullock cart or women with water pails or huts under trees is possible with skill. How about painting village life with none of these. Hot afternoon sunlight burning the old men waiting for the bus which is late by hours? A child playing with makeshift toys .... basically not painting the picture which we city folk have about villages. Or what we know that city dwellers expect a village scene to be! Basically not paint anything by the expected norms as far as subject and its depiction is concerned.

Even this is not that clear. Basically landscape stagnates on mediocrity when it ‘illustrates’ or ‘depicts’ a place or location. ‘leaving out’ and ‘adding in’ objects or people or any thing, isn’t what we are talking here. Nor even atmosphere. While discussing talent, we are aiming at the experience of the painter. Not just visual sensation, but feeling. What happens to the core of his ‘artist’ inside when he sees a scene. So you need not run behind the scene but see inside. And find what you experienced what you felt apart from the ‘picture’. And the ability to fathom this, and go beyond the need to transfer ‘picture in front’ to the paper in your capacity ...like said earlier 3D to 2D; To paint the ‘non obvious’ without making any deliberate effort to paint the non obvious. To paint the mundane beautifully and not avoiding the beautiful also.

To paint what is beautiful is easy and also tricky. Its easy to ‘transfer’ what is already beautiful and feel happy. And its also easy to shy away from it as its so low brow. The trick is to paint what lies beyond the surface. To paint the beauty of the beautiful, in a ‘different’ way. To ‘guide’ the humanity…to serve them different facets .

And also to paint mundane is also easy and tricky at same time. Its obviously ‘not so obvious’. To be able to paint the mundane with surety of being different. But that ‘being different’ lies in the subject matter. So many ‘experimental’ painters of landscapes are prone to get in the trap of ‘painting that neglected parts’. They also just ‘transfer’ the mundane on the paper and feel experimental. By my own experience, it feels really 'off track' to paint a water pump or a letter pox or a window. The question arises what makes you paint and how you translate that feeling on the paper.

So the talent lies in painting your own experience. And that is ‘different’ than mass produced painting …. Its an indication of talent. An ability to see the things with a different eye and with intelligence or feeling and convey it with enough skill. All with requisite measure. And talking about mass produced... prolific output of an artist is NOT an indication of talent. One can churn out large number on each holiday, but without substance. Will talk about this later :-)

So somehow, it seems that ‘talent’ is God gift. Well, yes. And every individual has talent. But very few has talent for ‘landscape’ painting. And for each art there are only few ‘talented artists’. And its true for all walks of life.

As we are talking about landscape, the specifics come in picture.

Basically with all the talk till now, we only deduce that ‘talent’ lies in not painting the ordinary stuff in ordinary way. It’s a knack of being different without making a ‘circus’ of art of landscape. It’s the grace which endows one with not only skill, and perseverance but also thinking ability and guts to brake the shackles of norms and traditions with the one divine input, vision. That grace.... what is usually called as 1% inspiration ..... is talent. 

Thought process in landscape

Landscape as practiced day today works in the realm of pictorial.. Of the visual. Off course as a genre of painting which is a visual art form it is bound to be ‘visual interpretation’ of reality. It is ‘pictorial representation’ of three dimensional creation of omnipotent. But is it all? Converting 3D in 2D? This is where the question of thought and vision comes into ‘picture’.

The thought process in landscape may come in application on many levels. While painting a normal ‘picture’ also, artist has to think about what size , what media, which surface, which paper, and then in the scene in front, what to select , what not to select, and then how! These questions get varied in many sub questions which sometimes really irritate me personally when asked…. What paper, which shade of green/ brown, which brand of watercolours, which brush, which water!!!!! As if the bat makes run for Tendulkar or pitch at the most! These questions are in area of ‘thinking’…HOW. And then some are deeper…. Should I leave out that electric pole, should I draw some hen or sheep for rustic effect, should I draw human figure here for scale!!!! These questions are on WHAT.

The semblance of thought in both aspects here is very simplistic and rather beginner’s dilemmas.

The question of WHAT and HOW can encounter a ‘serious’ practitioner also. WHAT to paint? First let’s think about how we think about an on locale painting. We are going to a place to paint. We usually know the place through earlier visits or photos seen. So we know what we are visiting and planning starts with preconditioned ideas what a certain place will look and how we can paint as per our ‘style’. We are already decided what we are going to paint and we like a mechanic paint that with skill which is also predetermined. It’s all as per plan and we seldom encounter the ‘reality’ and seldom do we search.

I have always taken a fancy to a line I read long ago.

SEE A FINISHED PAINTING BEFORE YOU START.

Rather tricky. Unknown to ourselves we have already seen what we are going to paint. But that line may mean something different. TRY TO SEE THE PAINTING THE WAY YOU WILL FINISH KEEPING ASIDE THE NORM BY WHICH YOU USUALLY DO.

In such scenario you will start thinking. Your choice of paper, media and even brand is preconceived by your planned imagination of your landscape. “You say what is so great in that locale, lets do small sketches in Indian colours on handmade!” Or this spot is exciting and saleable!!! So let’s do a large work on Arches using Winsor and Newton and take hours of efforts to do a ‘great’ landscape and sale this!!!! Or win some award!!!!

Well, you lost something of the search which we have to do for becoming an artist.

So if we attempt to look at the spot through the eyes of a child… with amazement and awe and find something new each time, unadulterated by our earlier ‘ideating’ we are on a journey. Eyes of a child I say, as normally we all are childish but not childlike.

So neither shun a little plant on the steps as a subject as gimmicky nor a river thinking it’s too cliché. Nothing can be chosen as naïve or ‘different’ with previous baggage.

Then we start to really think. With a clean slate. And then all questions of What , How and Why will be relevant. Light falling on a hut will be enchanting on its own merit and not because a certain Prashant Prabhu has done that before and it was admired and it got sold. You will paint that because you asked yourself why, and then how? The questions will have your own answers apart from the ones given earlier by others. You may or may not paint a river. You may or may not paint a road. The light shining on the surface of the highway on afternoon may not enamor you and it may not pose you any questions. Fair enough.

But if you walk ahead and see a hut below a banyan tree beside a village road and feel like painting it… STOP for a second and again question yourself. WHY? Because you have always painted those huts under a tree with success? Then a little more walk will be good exercise for the brain 

Further we go deeper in this discussion, we come to realize that questions before us are not of quantum physics nor for solving the European economic crisis. We are simple people doing very simple things. And the thinking process is more of SEARCH than SOLVING. We don’t know even know sometimes what we are searching. We may only know what we are NOT searching. The more we think more we find that most of it has been taken care of by others…. They have already painted it for you!!!!

If we just decide to not to repeat…. Not to paint anything remotely similar to what you have done before…. And then to what anyone as done before…. Then you will not need much prodding. Then leaving out all that is ‘obvious’ you start thinking. Can I paint this too? I have painted once a dish antenna and its shadow on an outing in Yeoor in Thane. Well, some may call it a gimmick. But if you are honest then it won’t be. It will be surely a ‘circus’ who still have the norms and are still thinking with planning they did before they left the house and ‘thought’ about painting the huts in Yeoor by ‘catching the light”

So till now all this talk is still about ‘thought process” and still more on that. As far as vision, it is for another day.  

Turner..... 19 th century

works by Childe Hassam, american impressionist