A Painter’s Modern Day Dilemma

I am once again stuck deep in the throws of a painter’s modern day dilemma. This was the cause for much stress and frustration last year during my fellowship at the NYAA. I thought I had come out of it.

Two Nudes

Botticelli, detail, La Primavera

With the industrialization of the photograph, it was said that painting had died. Of course, what that really meant was that the photograph had changed painting forever. The ease of capturing an image from life and transferring it on to a two dimensional surface through photography meant that painting was no longer the authority in that very small nook of representation.

Magritte, Time Transfixed

In the painter’s attempt to make painting still valid, cubism and surrealism came about. Painters created images from reality that a photograph could not. In a way, photography forced painting to depths more substantial that simple reproduction of the real on to canvas. Expressionism, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, etc. The dawning of psychoanalysis, the world wars, nuclear bombs aside- a major reason visual art went down the path that it did was because of the painter’s simple need to find validation once the photograph became the dominant form of visual reproduction. Everything else, all the movements fell into place, responding to the movement before, like dominoes.

There is the popular argument that to paint like the “old masters” is no longer valid, that representing the real through certain techniques that have belonged to the trade of painting for centuries is no longer necessary because we are living in a different time. Different times have different problems. Different problems ask for different solutions. I agree that we don’t live the same lives as Van Eyck or Caravaggio but we aren’t that different. And our world and our concerns still revolve around our own image, the human figure. And to completely disengage from our history and to abandon these techniques passed down through the centuries simply because we assume our cultures have evolved, is actually retroactive, not proactive. It is to deny where we came from and in essence, who we are. In fact, I would argue that today, more than ever, the image of the human figure is a dominant form in our psyche. And these techniques are a part of our history therefore, they are a part of us. And they can be expanded upon, but there is no reason to abandon them.

So many painters who have decided that they must make paintings different than the paintings of before, by default, tend towards clumsiness as if clumsiness is the only road a contemporary painter has left to walk down.

Andy Warhol, Campbell Soup Can

The artists today who do paint representationally continue to struggle for validity. After Abstract Expressionism it was hard for the artist to approach representation and when representation again found its voice, it was not with without irony. Even today, representational art is hardly ever found without irony or kitsch or nostalgia. There certainly is nothing wrong with addressing these three elements from time to time in a painting. I have. But they have become the three pillars of contemporary representational painting. They have become a crutch. They provide an easy answer for an artist seeking validity. And this is my dilemma.

Richter’s response as to what he is after in his paintings was perfect. He paints because painting is hope. Creating something good (as in ethically good, not quality) with our own hands is in direct defiance to all that is bad today, ie: war, famine, murder, disaster. And that’s it. That’s all the reason there needs to be. That said, as I’ve mentioned before in this blog, it is no longer enough to paint a pretty girl in a pretty landscape. To do this today is irresponsible. Though, I don’t want to rely on irony to carry my paintings either and I certainly don’t want to preach or lecture the audience about what’s wrong with this world.

I have found myself irreversibly engaged with the vocabulary of the representational language. And I have chosen to inherit the techniques of the past generations of painters and to expand upon these techniques with new answers from new, contemporary problems. I choose not to rely on irony, kitsch, and nostalgia as the only themes a contemporary, figurative painting can take. I want my paintings to be current, refreshing and to stand on their own. Where does this leave me? Where do I go from here?