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!

Dos and don'ts of a medium

Who is the master? Who is the boss? The medium or the artist?
The all time debate in the representational arts is about discipline in relation to medium. The non representational or contemporary painters of all media give a damn about discipline. The belief or conditioning that each medium has its own way of methodology and artist should work according to that for better results is largely followed in representational arts. Artist should follow certain rules of each medium!???

This is new area for us to discuss. Till now most of writing was about landscape genre and do n donts pertaining to the art form. Now it is about medium and not genre. The traditional rules of watercolour handling... watercolour specifically as it is major media for landscapes. 

Watercolour has a unique character in comparison to any other media. More transparent n fluid than any other if you take both these characteristics together. And that makes it tough to handle... according to practioners of other media!  Any watercolourist will love this very character of the medium and vouch for the individuality it has and it gives to the work.

But is it so simple? The conditioning for ages which tells us to work with style which enhances these characteristics of watercolours is one of the reasons for. .. should I say lack of contemporaneity?  We all know rules against use of dark deep colours..especially black. And also against white. And on larger scale against opaque use of colours. Just like it is against use of transparent use of oils! 

Now let me clarify that nothing against following rules. And RULES ARE MEANT TO BE BROKEN is famous line which I will like to append with ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE LEARNT AND MASTERED THEM.

 Break the rules after you experience them and find them not satisfying your thirst.

So if one wishes to follow. ..good.  If other doesn't... also good. But the basic question is... who decides the course? DOES MEDIUM DECIDE WHAT AND HOW ARTIST SHOULD PAINT OR ARTIST HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW HE WILL LIKE TO USE THE MEDIUM? 
It is larger issue than breaking rules. Because if medium decides then artist is not free and then not only methods but sometimes subjects also come under dos n donts. And the question of breaking the rules come only when this issue of medium dictating artist comes into picture. 
I from my own experience can vouch for one thing. It is not the medium which makes this rules but majority of users who didn't try or played within limits. 
Be a friend of the medium and take it ahead with you as you search. Both will feel the journey fruitful!!!

Kaiko Tanabe.....

Andrew Wyeth.... Do i need say more?

of practice and materials

One may notice, that there is a line of attack on landscape as a “ Sunday painter's “ pursuit for leisure. Or at best, his weapon for bravado in art world. Why and how this attack came about? I have discussed this before. A little more.

Impressionists were never Sunday painters. They gave their lives and careers for this foolish passion. Gaugain for example left thriving stock market wealth and legal practice to struggle as a painter! But as I have said earlier and many say this in derision, landscape from scenes , while on trip, makes one an amateur 'artist' amongst his friends. Well, we are not part of that 'kind'. But then landscape painter, or painter who is devoted largely to landscapes, has to refute this by his example. The onus lies on us.

One of the major bane or failing of landscape in regard to keeping with time, is non seriousness of the practioner of this genre. For earning a living many of us follow other professions or allied art forms. Well and good. But then do we keep constant DAILY practice with this art form? If not daily, how about a bit more than weekends? And here the art of working from photographs will come into play. We city folks will not be able to paint on weekdays, but then those who are 'serious' will try adapting from references. The insistence of working on locale and also 'not from photographs' is clearly interlinked. And so we see paucity of opportunities of painting landscapes and hence lack of practice and final resultant amateurishness.

How much and how many times is a personal choice? But nothing comes easy if you are not divinely blessed, which contrary to every one's belief we are not! So years of constant SADHANA ..meaning practice is indispensable. Painting once a week for a few years will delude you with skill at the most!

And then question comes of the economics! Daily practice requires materials. Yes they do! And papers of high quality cost a bob and artist quality colours of international brands a big fortune! Then what? This dilemma has many aspects.

First from personal experience, a general impression about 'professionals' getting great work each time is using best materials. We can't afford it! Now this will be dicey and complicated. First, as all professional will somewhat guiltily 'claim' that good materials only won't suffice. And its not a question of affordability alone but also of choice. 

Correct. But allow me go deeper and be a bit brash. All the better artists , at least in India, have trudged early years on 'inferior'(?) materials honing their skills like any art student. And constant practice need not be shied away from lack of affording better materials. And once you get on higher plane, and if you 'make it'... who is stopping you from using better materials regularly? And frankly if one is really passionate then he will spend on materials at cost of all else... a certain Van Gough did!!!

Let me give an anlogy. In Indian cricket team, we have two 'artists' with bat... Tendulkar and Laxman who dazzle one and all with their artistry with willow. So, what is their secret? Anyone taking their bat or 'affording' to use such bat, should be able to play reasonably well, if not 'that well'. Nobody will be that good but then what stops others from coming anywhere near? And both of them must have worked for years with 'normal' gear on practice pitches to arrive here. Even now, before the match, both are given only practice pitches ....even if HE is GOD!!!!

So let us understand, that good material will not guarantee the great work each time. Agreed that good material is conducive for better results and better paper responds better to your experiments. But one has to attain that understanding and experience to try that skill and then by all means use Arches/ Artistco! Constant practice and giving thought all your life to your vocation is first requirement. And one sub section on this problem. We see many advanced painters using 'imported' materials of affordable range, what is called 'amateur' range abroad. And expecting to get great results. Well many times they don't! And then they get disheartened. From my personal experience such range is an eye wash. Rather go whole hog and use the best or make do with ordinary stuff. Its a subtle pride and mirage we are running behind in using the so called 'international' brands. What you pay for, you get! So I for one, will rather went for Indian Handmade than some 'amateur' range. And mind you, once you get 'real' mastery over the medium then any..ANY paper in the world will not hinder you. I vouch it from my own experience and all of those who know will too.

So lets stop beating around the bush and start working regularly with whatever we can 'afford' :-)

Finding something new every time!

As landscape painters, when we are going on the spot, there are two types of painters we see. As said earlier, most of them, are planning in mind what they will paint after reaching, with previous knowledge or experience of the spot. And few will keep a clean slate or open mind and encounter the scene with fresh eyes. But both of them many times are faced with one giant question. What NEW I can paint here, which is not done before?

Now this 'done before' has two connotations. Never done by me or never done before by anybody??? the second question will fast coming to a stage where you wont find an answer. WHATEVER SUBJECT YOU WILL SEE HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE BY SOMEONE SOMEWHERE. YOU MAY NOT KNOW BUT SOMEONE ELSE WILL POINT OUT!

The first question is trickier than first thought. You have not seen the whole world and it is not possible. Then you will always find unseen...unseen by you... places to paint. So you may say that this is not painted before. Is it so simple? If one goes deep inside ones self and even enter the memory, most of us paint the same thing again and again! We keep on repeating the same landscape with cosmetic changes. We keep on masticating. So finding something new isnt answered by looking for subjects or places. It is found inside .

It is said, that some artists have a different way of seeing. I paint 'different' kind of landscapes because I have a knack of seeing things differently. Well, there may be some sense in it but the truth is artist sees the way he paints. 

Let me elaborate further. Some people are fond of pretty pictures wherever they go. So they look for huts along the road below a tree. Or say bullock cart or a village well. They will not and cannot see a barren grassland or wide empty highways. They are fond of forests and old monuments. They may not see at modern buildings or shanties. I am giving samples which are most cliche. But the fact remains, artist will look for the subjects he fancies. It is not the other way round as it is said that artist paints the way he sees. But he looks for subjects the way he paints.

So wherever one goes, first step is not to repeat yourself. Be very ruthless to yourself. Challenge yourself. Broadly we find our niche in two modes. One is way of expression, be it style, angle of views or composition or technique. And second is subjects... windows, markets, railways, beaches, monuments or village scenes. In both catagories challenge yourself. Subjects when repeated are easier to be pointed out.... that we are stuck with subjects. But in ways of expression and style, it is more subtle. If you find that you have got this knack of using dark shades and painting 'light at the end of tunnel' feel, go for something else. Or you find that you have got into the habit of painting bold washes and skies...repeating it mechanically... wake up. And let me admit, this mistakes I myself have gone through... being stuck in one particular 'style' and 'angle of views'.

And there is another view on the 'change'. You may paint a 'speciality' subject of yours but then challange on technique and execution front. Rock formations...well look for different way to paint rocks. Windows and doors.... look for different angles. And if you have knack of 'seeing differntly' of composing differently, then challange yourself on subject front. Find different places which you only will be able to see the way you can.

Whenever you feel that I should paint this, then ask yourself, HAVE I DONE THIS BEFORE? Not this particular door or tree, but something similar? I dont need to tell you, that your inner voice will tell you the answer.

And finally, finding something that nobody has done before! Well, that is far difficult and requires 'divine providance' in many cases. And we easily delude ourselves on that.

Abstract artists are in more precarious position. At least we representational artists become aware of similarities but in abstract you see nearly all experimentation is 'seen before'. And I am not talking about repeataion by the same painter. All 'new' breakthroughs are blatantly comsetic. Some texture here, some shape there. But finally the overall visual leaves you with just one feeling...have seen this before!

So it is really a spark that flies out of fire and ignites a new flame. You keep challanging yourself, asking question.... and not repeat yourself. The 'individuality' of artist and his work should be in the 'feel' and 'experience' and not in technical virtuosity or uniqueness of subject or execution.

My master always told me that your work should not be so predictable that it itself becomes your signature.

What I understand now.... your each work should be a new experience with a feeling and acknowledgement that only you can give that experience!

Ask, ask, ask.... HAVE I DONE THIS BEFORE?

Use of photos - 2

In the first part i had mentioned my insistence on taking your own photograph.

Every painter is not a trained photographer and may not have a great instrument. But taking ones own photo, has a certain positives. First, you see the 'original' yourself while shooting. You are there and have experienced the place, and seen through the viewfinder. Seen through that hole you get an idea what you are intending to paint and that view is like that of a  'window' we use in on the spot working. We can choose a part of the whole. 

And for the more sentimental painters, the feel of the place, the sun, wind, and smells too subtly influence  your work.

The whole exercise makes shooting your own photograph a better choice. 

Now we go deeper in the positives of the photograph as a reference.

Photo is 2D. So the romance of conversion from 3D is lost. But then the original 3D is vast and seems daunting to the painter with its vastness or number of things. Photograph reduces the numbers and vastness. But that is not only result that we are seeking. Usually on locale, the whole question of selecting and deleting and conversion of perspective and simplifying the colours around, all these create lot of questions and in solving them most of the 'thought process' gets exhausted . And artist has little chance and energy for experiment and deviating from reality. We are going to paint our 'own' image and not 'paint' a photograph by hand. Most of the times the whole exercise of the selecting thwarts the search for original.

Taking your photograph can be said as a first step where we do most of the selection and 'composing the view' part. We find less questions to solve in the second part of painting the landscape itself. But this second part which simplifies the process, many times misleads the painter in actual practice.

As said earlier, one slavishly copies from photograph. So the idea of simplifying the process backfires. But we can also argue, that one who 'copies' or 'illustrates' can easily manage that on the spot too. So whats the key? First understand that by using photo we are not going to just 'ease' the inconveniences of painting on locale. You are not replacing the hot sun and dusty air with cool enviornment of the studio by using photos.

We are going to utilize the energy saved in 'thinking' , in finding new ways.

While working from photo one may have to desist from oberving the photo a lot. Rather look at it as least as possible. Use it to see the composition or colours for just 'refering'. This is really important. 'refering'. Just refer. And paint what you remenber or more important what inspired you when you saw that scene. I for one, many times prefered black n white photos. Its a personal choice. But black n white in my experience tends to influence the colours in painting near to nothing. So you can paint the colours you want, not what the photo dictates.

No Influence! Dont allow the photo to influence. It is just a reference and you are taking this route to 'deviate'. Lesser you rely on the photo to find the reality, better it is. It should not dictate what you are going to paint but just help you in stop getting dictated by vast scenes on locale.

And slowly one day, photograph will be just an aid to refresh the memory. To remind the 'original shapes' and not to show you how the objects were like. The clear aim and understanding will make it a fruitful exercise to paint from photo. Or it will be a bane. Then on the spot painting will be the right choice. It has its own positives and negatives. But if you cannot surmount the problem of 'slavish copying' then please leave this path of painting from photos. From my experience watching others, its easier to get slaved in copying a photo than on the spot!

So even though i use photos a lot as reference, i admit its not an easy way as it seems and better be mixed alongside constant practice of on the spot painting.

Ultimately the final work is important and not the path. The quality is important not the method!

Enjoy!