I would like to hear what this group of artists believe makes good landscapes. Is there a feeling or something that words can explain, or not. Should people be placed in landscape images? Is their presence necessary to make better art than without them?
In the last ongoing post, David mentioned “The main thing that stands out to me is the absence of people”, this hit me as being very profound. I immediately ran to look at my work, and sure enough, I had nearly totally failed to put people in any of my landscapes; when I did, it was unconscious. The only time I paint people is when I paint people. This is odd to me now, (what have I been thinking?), it seems so obvious to want to include something as familiar as people in a work to make it more inviting to the viewer, they could perhaps bring attention to something being performed. At what point however, would a “landscape” painting become a “genre” painting? Does it matter? I would like to know what quality you may feel is most important and should be included in most landscapes.
Cheers
Jon, I think the things that make a good landscape painting are the same things that make a good painting of any subject. But what those things are is going to vary from artist to artist and painting to painting. Anything else I say would be suggesting a formula.
My feeling is that if you’re going to use a formula it’s best to come up with your own. That can be part of what defines your work. Many excellent artists have come up with unique formulas, and as their formulas evolved so did their work. It’s only if the formula remains the same that the work stagnates. Using someone else’s formula is what I think Karl would refer to as being merely craft, and this is one of those rare things I would agree with him on.
Regarding my comment on Pauls photographs, I want to make clear that what I was responding to was not just the absence of people, which occurs in many landscape images, but the fact that their absence was so present.
During the 19th century there was some discussion as to how many cows one should put in a pastoral landscape. I believe Daubigny thought there should be three. Seems right to me :)
Jon, I had a debate with an influential guy called Brooks Jensen a few months back. His proposition was that good landscapes (the context was photography) required the capturing of a decisive moment (the ‘decisive moment’ phrase carries a lot of baggage in photography, so don’t get too hung up on the specifics, if you know the history).
My counter argument is that landscapes could be about a ‘decisive look’. That is rather than look for a special time, look for a completely ordinary time. Don’t go for the peak of the storm (or, rather more rudely, the sunset), but find out how a place usually looks. Brooks’ contention is that my approach would lead to boring images (and he gets to see a lot of images). My contention was that it need not.
This post was towards the end of the debate, so contains a link to the major elements. It is a bit patchy (being a blog and all), but you’ll get a feel for the points at issue. The nearest there is to a summary is the article called In defence of the non-luminous landscape. However, the article came at the beginning of the debate, not the end, so doesn’t contain all of the relevant arguments.
As I’ve just been moving those posts around and setting them up in WordPress, I’ll rush off now and make sure there are no broken links. If you hit a broken link, try it again in a few minutes.
Jon,
This is not an easy question you ask.
My approach to painting, to handmade art in general, is to never, ever use photographs. In the past this has put me into a negative attitude about photography in general, and toward artists who paint from photographs in particular.
Since I began blogging and discussed the issue with other artists, I have come to have both a deep respect for photography and for artists who make use of it.
I still maintain my old position for my own work however — no using photos. And yet, reading this blog I have become interested in photography as an art form in itself. I decided that I can do photography and not alter my approach to painting, as long as I don’t mix the two in any given work.
Today I bought a camera and photographed some landscape — cityscape in fact — that I have had my eye on for a long time. It is an area of constitution, something I always find exciting and a theme which I have painted before (in Berlin.) But my current focus on sculpture precludes any possibility of painting landscape for me now.
As I was making photos (and enjoying this a great deal) it occurred to me that photography could inform me in a general way of what would be a good way to paint landscape. The idea I had was, whatever I could do with a camera, I would see no purpose in painting with paint. This is not a dogma, or even a definite idea, but the idea of the moment. Let me make that clear.
It seems to me that it could be one answer to your question: what makes good landscapes? If you could capture everything that the painting says just as well with a camera, then it suggests that the painting is superfluous. That is not to say it is not good, of course.
Karl, what is your feeling about Vermeer? He didn’t use photos, but he did use a camera.
More on this later when I have a bit more time. But for now, two quotations I think bear on the subject, both of them from Robert Adams, a landscape photographer and writer.
“There is always a subjective aspect in landscape art, something in the picture that tells us as much about who is behind the camera as about what is in front of it.”
“…What we hope for from the artist is help in discovering the significance of a place.”
Both of those are from Adams’ book “Beauty in Photography”.
David,
No doubt the absence of people in Paul’s photos are do to the fact that the weather is cold and miserable most of the time. I sure appreciate your insights however, now I am thinking of practicing some “genre” style paintings for a while, because I feel so strongly about having people in my work for the sake of more expression.
I definitely think artists need to develope their own “formulas”, sampling other styles may be fine to learn what you like about this or that, but in the end, artists will ultimately discover their own method to achieve their goals; out of shear toil.
In regards to “formulas”, color and brushwork always seem to be unique to each painter, each painter will find their shortcuts and system that works for them. Painters may at one time or another have sampled others work, or tried some new technique they discovered through other’s efforts, but in the end, it is their hands and eyes that have to create their own. Though some may set out to paint like others, I don’t think it is possible for Sargent to paint like Titian, or for Manet to paint like Franz Hals, even though they may set out to do so. They will however, be heavily influenced by their efforts in that direction. The final “product” will be their unique permutation of their God-given skill, influence, bias, shortcomings, etc. I have been pleasantly influenced by your comments to Paul’s post, they were great objective observations, something just clicked about the “people” thing. Now to start thinking about and discover my “people formula”.
Colin,
I have always thought that great artists can paint anything, and make great art, I sure appreciate you bringing that up.
David,
My feelings about photography and painting have in the past (before the blogging I mention) been mostly negative, but also inconsistent. I have always considered Richard Estes, the photo realist, one of the great painters of the 20th century (although his work is only really interesting when seen in life).
There is a big debate about whether the old masters used optical devices or not, as you know. For my part, I don’t much care. Also, a camera that does not record the image is worlds away from a photograph. The difference is so great that the two topics hardly have any baring on each other.
As for Vermeer, I find his work okay but a bit dull. At a technical level it is no more impressive than other 17th century painters who for some reason are not as well known today, but who were equally or more successful in the 17th century, for example, Gerard Dou. I suspect that Vermeer is popular today in part because his style is more palatable to the modern eye.
Karl,
It is a fact that artists have been using photographs, etchings, engravings, other’s drawings, and classic literature for sources as long as images have been transferred. I agree artists who work only from photos may be limiting there full potential, but using sources, whether photos or ten days of life drawings, is using sources period. Working with so many artists over the years, I was fortunate to see all sorts of approaches to producing work, it was surprising how many artists produced great work from just photos, and how bad some of the other’s work was of folks who painted strickly in plein air. It seemed to me the most talented were the ones who could use them all and still creat a consistant look. I guess it is the finished product that counts the most to society.
David,
Vermeer is a great example of using sources, and of an impoverished artist dying flat broke and in debt.
Jon,
I tried to explain that my negative attitude about photography and art is something I have grown out of. But just because other artists do something, it doesn’t mean I need to. Sources determine the trajectory of an artwork. That is why I choose mine so carefully. This does not diminish the choices of others.
Vermeer died in debt because of very special historical circumstances, the invasion and near conquest of the Dutch Republic by Louis XIV. The Dutch Republic survived and prospered, but the art market was ruined and it brought the end of the Golden Age. Vermeer would have been just fine without the war of 1672. It ruined many artists and art dealers.
Paul,
I had to smile after reading Edward’s comment in the previous post, after two years in Ferndale, California, with 9 months of drizzle a year, I was running for the door. Having such a depressing experience in the Humboldt County area, I share his sentiments with the general region and what has been happening up there for years.
Your landscapes “without people” still draw my attention to their complexity, and nature. The “frozen moment” is what I think Colin’s friend was referring to. Your work really captures the spirit of the Pacific Northwest regardless if people like it up there or not. Besides, you seem to be enjoying living there just fine, you are also one of the few people tough enough to record it.
Karl,
“Vermeer died in debt because of very special historical circumstances, the invasion and near conquest of the Dutch Republic by Louis XIV. The Dutch Republic survived and prospered, but the art market was ruined and it brought the end of the Golden Age. Vermeer would have been just fine without the war of 1672. It ruined many artists and art dealers”.
That is very interesting, I never really knew what caused the recession where he lived; thanks!
artists need to develop their own “formulas”, sampling other styles may be fine to learn what you like about this or that, but in the end, artists will ultimately discover their own method…
I agree. I hope you didn’t take my comment as a suggestion that you start from scratch. If we didn’t learn from our predecessors and contemporaries we’d all still be making marks on the ground with sticks. Not that there’s anything wrong w/ doing so, of course (though it’s hard to sell), but we’d have missed out on a lot of great art. And we wouldn’t have iPods.
I absolutely think that the whole body of human knowledge is there for us to use, as needed. What we each choose to use or not use, whether it’s technique, technology or philosophy, is a personal choice, and the choices we make evolve as we continue to learn.
David
“I hope you didn’t take my comment as a suggestion that you start from scratch”. I did not take it that way at all, the comment sparked something I hadn’t really thought about; it is my natural progression and growth that beckons me down various road. All in the name of learning and discovery. I do appreciate having access to your opinions, you “especially” may understand where I am coming from as a painter yourself.
These days I think of myself as more of a “floorist” than a painter, but I do understand :)
Jon,
I’m sorry it took me so long to comment on this post. At the time you made it, I was in a screeching cat fight with some former partners over a lot of money, and then in the hysteria of the moment, I had to get my Saturday post up, pack, get the hell out of Dodge, and then I was on the train until yesterday afternoon and had to set up house again in California, temporarily.
But I have the all time greatest most super duperest answer to your question: What Makes a Great landscape?
I don’t know.
People? Maybe. It depends. If it feels natural. When the landscape is grand, a little person in the picture can show the scale dramatically.
As an observer of audience reactions to landscapes, people most commonly buy landscapes that remind them of places and times of their lives when they have been happy or excited.
As an audience, not an artist specifically, I am attracted to landscapes that invite me IN.
And as regards to photography, I’m all for results. I’ve used photographs to help me paint and draw for twenty years. I use them in my portrait work all the time, taking dozens of shots for each painting. I have no artistic dilemma about it all. I am always painting or drawing the vision I perceived, not copying a copy.
One has to learn to work with the limitations of photographs though; for example, it is easier to work from severely overexposed photos. They are bad as photos, but the open shadows are easy to work from while the lights are easy to fill in from memory. In shots of foliage in particular, the camera will really flatten things, so you have to in addition to learning how to trick the shot into more depth — still — really, really look. The use of the camera should never be a substitute for looking.
Photographers know this. They talk about it all the time with each other. They make jokes about the tourist who uses his camera to see.
If you work from photographs, you will need to become a technically knowledgable photographer, but there are lots and lots of good books, articles, websites and blogs about that, so it’s pretty easy hook up and learn.
One last, when I started using photographs my production statistics soared to ten times the pre-photo era,
I never looked back. Money talks.