about painting and it's techniques involved
inadream
It's about painting .
I think every artist who creates a work of art of cultural value has a
thorough understanding of the use of the materials he or she uses.Wether
it's Rembrandt or De Kooning.
I think that a young painter ,someone who is in his twenties (like I am, I'm
26 now) has to go through a struggle to make out which artistic identity
he/she has. Which place in art-history this time will have when it comes to
the art of painting. I read and heard a lot of people say "painting is
dead".
There you go, when you are beginning as a painter !
The arguments for the art of painting losing it's importance or relevance
is -to the people who say it's dead- that it's a medieval art-form not
appropriate to use in this era as a contemporary artform. The main mistake
that they make -I think- is that images that apply to the definition of art-
whatever definition that may be; can never compete with the instant
sensations of images of for example reality-TV or what's happening in the
news.
Art is not real. It's by definition "art"-ificial.
When it comes to the point that art wants to compete with these
reality-phenomena art loses what could make it special.
Art has the ability to create elevating experiences , to transform a place
or a moment in an experience of beauty, understanding and wonder ; art isn't
true but it can be truthful. Although it isn't real it can show an aspect of
reality that you never experienced before.
A painter is a poet- i believe- he/she creates from an empty canvas an
experience of color and space and material from a vision that's not
documenting the world we live in but his/her vision interprets that world
and re-creates it in a new universe of experiences that went through the
soul rather than through the recording eyes.
That's why I think the art of painting could well go through a new
renaissance in the near future. no-one can tell ,of course.
All the people that say that the place of painting has been taken by new
media like video, photography, film; I say they are absolutely right but to
a certain extent. these are new important media. but these persons too
easily forget that painting ressurected as an art-form so many times.
The main problem with the art of painting - I think - is not the 'modern
revolution' or the education-system.
It's a question of mentality.
With the 'modern revolution' came a whole disorientated view of art-history
as it were. We're now beginning to explore the neglected artists of the
nineteenth century for example. Modern art being forbidden in World war II
gave modern art a political correct image, which paved the way for an even
more distorted view of 'important' moments in the history of modern art.
Everything that could be associated with the 'academic' painting in 19th
century Paris was suspect.
Now i think that the modern heritage has been the cause for more boring
works of art than that were ever made in the complete era of the nineteenth
century. I have nothing against modern art neither do I have something
against the classics from which the 'academic' movement emerged.
I think that painters need to modernise their view on the medium and
art-history. Art-history is not static but it's constantly changing. Every
five years a new view on Rembrandt emerges when you look closely to the
books written about him. In the early eighties he was portrayed as an
ass-hole(Gary Schwartz), in the midst eighties he was portrayed as a
business-man(Svetlana Alpers), and now a poetic reaction on that kind of
portrayal one can see in the most recent book about him(Ernst van de
Wetering).
I think that modern art was important but not as cultural important as that
it is considered on the whole. I think for example that Walt Disney should
be considered a great artist, but I don't see Mickey Mouse mentioned in my
copy of honour/Fleming. I think that the visual invention of WINDOWS and
it's effect on image-making is important but I don't see it mentioned in any
essay on contemporary art.
Art needs a new structure; a new mind-set from which it can grow into a new
renaissance. The structure and strategies of the computer for example is -i
think- the key to a new era in painting. The interpretations of these
structures are personal i think. But think of the many renaissance and
baroque paintings that have a resemblance in structure, when you compare
them to the images created with a computer. Therefore I believe in the
future of painting as a medium.
We have to get rid of the naive stereotyping of art-historic events. I think
we have to accept the complexity of things. Many things developing parrallel
to each other rather than a thin line from one innovation/artist to another.
thanks for reading this text, I hope it helps other artists to define their
artistic identity.
greetings,
peter
"a painting is finished when a painter has put his intentions in
it"-Rembrandt