This year started with disillusionment with respect to real realism as
defined in the essay published in January 2024.
Pretty much as soon as the essay was finished it became clear that many
ideas outlined in it needed more thorough philosophical treatment. For
example:
What exactly is a non-trivial intention? What is the criterion for
“non-triviality”?
What exactly is the real realist intention (RRI)? When can we say that a
perceptual experience is aligned with the RRI?
It soon became obvious that painting could not be a medium for implementing
the RRI, since the RRI had to be defined as attending to reality for its
intrinsic value rather than for its extrinsic value. This is a particularly
subtle issue to tackle, but suffice it to say that when painting, one does
not attend to reality for “its own sake” but in order to make a picture.
There can be no “escape hatch” in this question. If that is so, what should
we do in order to implement the RRI? The solution, it seems, is to work on a
completely different approach which has little to do with art as it is
usually understood. I call this approach perception routines and hope to
publish a new essay on the matter in the coming months (likely January
2025).
In addition to philosophical development of real realism which effectively
eliminated it as an artistic approach, I found myself too constrained in my
painting practice by what I stipulated in the aforementioned essay. In other
words, spring finally came and it became difficult to keep painting purely
real realist works that aim to make a certain point. Instead, I found myself
painting a more traditional kind of landscapes and enjoying nature. Besides,
making a point with art by virtue of doing something not entirely common
became almost an intention of its own, and a trivial one at that, since most
artists strive to make something that “stands out”. My attitude to this was
to relax and enjoy spring.
At the end of spring I started to have serious doubts about how to continue
with painting so I put it aside pretty much till August and shifted my
attention to photography. Photography for me means exclusively film
photography, since the digital medium cannot possibly convey what I observe
in the world—it is too sterile and the results are always unsatisfactory. I
believe I made significant progress with development of my aesthetic via
photography this year and extended my usual range of subject matter.
In August my interest in painting started to rekindle, but changes had to be
made. Once I had (re)defined the RRI I faced once again the question of what
kind of considerations should drive my painting practice. Perception
routines grew into a separate branch of research that had nothing to do with
visual arts and hence it could not be used to inform the latter. Abandoning
painting completely was never an option for me. I have to admit that I
simply love the craft, and yet it would be self-indulgent and lazy to
practice it for its own sake and without an intellectual discipline.
In my rethinking of painting I took the following as axioms:
I want to treat painting as a form of meditation, therefore it has to be
done alla prima in under 2 hours of time while directly observing the
subject. No subsequent corrections are allowed, one has to accept the
result as it is.
I want to paint what I find around me without inventing or embellishing
anything. Even traveling to a special location is not an option.
I do not want to use any tricks in order to impress anyone or stand out.
I had to accept that there is a certain aesthetics that my works have and
that I want to cultivate. One way to define this aesthetics is to say that
it is anti-escapist. On this view, material reality is the only art-worthy
subject not because the artworks that are derived from it are more
interesting or beautiful, but because it is the only subject that we can
perceive with our senses and interact with directly. This mode of
interaction is a privilege, hence it deserves to be valorized through art.
Besides, it is always fun to go against the general mass of people, and that
mass nowadays is escapist; it is turning away from material reality and
towards the realm of carrier reality, primarily through the medium of the
Internet.
Now, a few words need to be said about purely technical adjustments to my
process. Those seemed to be necessary in order to shake things up. Sometime
in July-August I decided to change the way I prepare canvases. As usual, I
was after a more organic and natural look but without having to compromise
on my rapid and simplistic alla prima approach. So, the new approach was
to cover a canvas with an interesting and varying underpainting (not a
single flat tone) and even add a bit of impasto here and there. The
underpainting was supposed to make thin oil layers on top get that
micro-variation that makes them look less flat, all without having to vary
the tones “manually” for the most part. The underpainting also makes the
whole picture more material and solid. As for the impasto part, it would
have a life of its own, completely disconnected from what later would be
painted over it. In retrospect I think it represents a kind of resistance on
the part on the canvas. That resistance is desirable because it helps to
produce more complex dynamics in the work.
During the actual painting process I found myself dedicating more attention
to matching colors of the world around me more precisely and using less
obvious and more varied brushstrokes. At its core though, my painting
process remained simple, which does show in the end, but the results are now
a bit more natural.
The last component to this painterly renaissance was some fresh imagery that
my photographic work provided and that I could not dare to directly approach
as a painter (think grass, weeds, and other unremarkable elements that can
nevertheless be challenging to paint). I found that this new imagery spoke
to me and provided metaphors for many things, even for political
catastrophes of today that are nearly impossible to tackle in art.
80 artworks: 42 photographs, 33 oils, and 5 others