Painting in the 21st. Century.
Paint on canvas? Surely this is a medium that has been entirely outmoded by recent developments in photography and image processing? Processes that permit the making of almost any conceivable image with a greater variety of colour, hue and contrast than our forbears could ever have imagined in their wildest dreams. Not only has the making of images changed beyond all recognition, but the availability of those images has totally changed, too. No longer do people have to visit galleries, museums or libraries merely to view what image-makers have created. Today’s Internet now provides the opportunity for everyone to freely access works of art previously only available to the few. As such, the making and enjoyment of Art has been irrevocably changed forever. The democratization of culture is in full swing.
So, given the astonishing possibilities for technological image-making in our age, why would anyone wish to practice the old craft of applying paint to canvas?
We are products of not only our own age, but of our collective history. Creativity has been the defining aspect of our species since we dwelled in caves. It could be argued that artistic creativity is the only thing that separates us from our animal cousins. Without this abstract creativity we represent no more than any other biological entity, genetically programmed for survival and reproduction in a competitive environment.
The application of form, colour and line to a surface has been the mainstay of image recording since prehistoric times. To continue in this way is to recognise one’s part in tradition and history. It is to accept the time line – the connectivity between past, present and future – and express the desire to be a willing participant in its continuity. Of course, we may incorporate the many new materials, techniques and vocabularies now available to us but the fundamental act of ‘making marks on a surface’ remains. And the physical act, in itself, is deeply rooted within us. It is now coded in our DNA.
Whilst the appreciation of Art may be collectively enjoyed, the making of it is invariably selfish. The ‘intent’ to make Art – fundamentally useless in a biological sense – is an inherently private act, an egoistic expression of the urge to assimilate the human condition. This need to express the self may arise from a desire to celebrate the joy of life or, in a cathartic sense, to mollify or appease personal torment. Between these two extremes lie myriad reasons for artistic expression – desire for peer recognition, praise or castigation, acceptance or rejection, the need to be different from, or accepted by a group – but always there is ‘intent’. Without intent, we do not have Art. We only have ‘stuff’.
Personally, I consider all the Arts – painting, sculpture, music, literature, dance and audio-visual expression – to be the same, only different. It is easier to be specific with literature or drawing, for instance, than with music or dance but they are all, equally, manifestations of the basic human desire for self expression. The message may be expressed in many forms but its essence is always more important than its means.
Creativity is the opposite of consumerism. It is about giving, rather than taking. It is fundamentally social, though its execution or appreciation may be uniquely private.