The drive behind the reading I have been doing recently, about the nature of landscape painting, was stimulated initially by my sense of puzzlement about just where my own work might fit into the larger scheme of things. I rarely paint “views” in any conventional sense, and frequently the scope of vision is narrowed quite dramatically, to specific objects (or even parts of objects) such as rocks or trees. I am finding it a fruitful process, and very thought-provoking, although I am sure that it is far from finished. Some things are emerging fairly clearly, even at this incomplete stage.
I no longer feel any inhibition about describing what I do as “landscape”. Definitions of the genre vary, but everyone appears to settle on a sense of it involving “nature” as the object of attention, with some kind of implication that questions are being posed about the relationship between human beings (particularly the implied observer) and the natural world. That’s me. Fine! The question arises, however, as to the kind of purpose the artist might have in examining and depicting nature.
I have been intrigued by Kenneth Clark’s typology of approaches to landscape, and find that there is quite a strong affinity between what he has to say about the “symbolic” landscape and my own work. I have always been aware that there is usually some metaphorical reference in the work I do. Things are not straightforwardly what they appear to be, and the object being portrayed carries an implied reference to something other than itself. The objects I depict have been chosen precisely for their capacity to bear that burden. My attention focuses on what might be called “significant objects”.
On reflection I have also realised the strength of the potential connections between my own work and that of other artists, particularly Andy Goldsworthy and Julia Sorrell, although both of them are pursuing in important respects goals other than mine (and also to a rather higher standard!)
There does remain an important area to which I feel drawn to closer consideration. I have been struck, and to some extent frustrated, by the failure of viewers to realise what it is that I am doing. Rather than blame the viewer I now am inclined to give more attention to the ways in which the “significant” qualities of the objects I paint might be made a little clearer. I suppose that in the past I have been inclined to rely on titles to do this work, but I wonder now whether more of the work ought to be done within the picture itself. The question is, of course, how do I go about that? Today’s “featured image” (entitled The Dark Sister) poses this kind of question.
I continue to read in this area, and I’m getting a good deal out of Malcolm Andrews’ Landscape in Western Art. Having made the point in a previous blog, however, I am noticing increasingly the extent to which people writing about landscape appear to be ignorant of non-European traditions. I’m sure that there is a great deal to be learned here. I would be very interested (given the opportunity) to look more into the way in which the Chinese device of the scroll, for example, perhaps permits the artist to engage with issues of time. As regular readers of this blog might be aware, time is one of my recurring interests, and it might be valuable to compare different ways of relating to time pictorially. Another day!