Your Thoughts about Orientalism

[Tom Edgerton]

Sharon--

Interesting reaction...

I can see your point if an artist were recreating false nostalgia for propaganda purposes, but if I go to another land, am I prohibited from setting up and recording the culture that is before me, especially if those being painted are aware of it? If I were there working, what constitutes a factual rendering versus a condescending one--what are "safe" choices versus ones that are not? At what point does this process become exploitive?

Is this any different from taking travel photos? Is this any different from taking photos of another culture for photojournalistic purposes and remuneration, as with National Geographic?

What if, for example, the scenes were a fairly straightforward depiction of rural China, and the artist is a white American? Does this change if the artist is Chinese-American? Does this change if the artist is a city-dwelling, middle-class Chinese native? Does this change if the artist is another rural Chinese native?

I'm not attacking your point of view; I'm merely asking for purposes of discussion and because I think a further parsing of your commentary would help me understand it better.

Thanks--Tom

[Michele Rushworth]

Portraiture as possible exploitation. Hmmmm... interesting idea.

In the movie "Girl with a Pearl Earring" the client who theoretically commissioned the portrait was certainly doing it as exploitation, but then he had already attacked her physically and wanted the portrait as a way of posessing her when he couldn't have her in reality.

Is it exploitation if I paint a portrait of a handsome male dancer (which I'm doing now)? Is it exploitation if other women admire his muscular form in the painting? Is it exploitation if he dances on the stage and women admire him then?

A fuzzy line....

[Allan Rahbek]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

Is it exploitation if I paint a portrait of a handsome male dancer (which I'm doing now)? ....

I believe it is...if you think that he is handsome. But then again, he is probably aware that he is cute.
On the other hand you sort of balance the exploitations of beautiful women posing for artists of all sexes.... Sorry, just kidding.

The problematic is about what the artist is selling. Is it art or souvenirs ?

If I was an Indian I would be proud to have my portrait painted of a clever portrait painter and I would hate to be distributed as cheap souvenirs.

Allan

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Tom, thanks for the link: both artists have nice work posted.

I agree that art based on personal observation is by far more convincing and more able to withstand scrutiny over time then some fantasy imagery. I find nothing wrong with nostalgic paintings as long as the artists depicts something that they have personal knowledge of.

Having read many art history books, and especially books about Orientalism, it has come to my attention, how paintings are used by historians to reconstruct an era and it

[Sharon Knettell]

We have to make a discernment here of art that is done for a living, for profit, or for ones self expression.

I have spoken about the repetitive nature of the little girls in white dresses. It is lucrative no doubt, but I won't go there right now.

I think an artist should paint what he truly knows and loves. He should develop and explore what he has to say, what he means to communicate, not endless genre paintings and landscapes of other cultures.The Burdick renderings are a superficial record of a culture he obviously neither knows or understands deeply and done for his own profit. They just as well could be paintings of Laplanders or Eskimos. It is the quaintness not the content that is important. They are simply facile renderings of photos taken in situ, illustrations. They are derivative and trite. The photographs would have served as well, unless paint handling is a major criteria in judging artistic merit.

The Tibetan culture is an extremely sophisticated one, which is belied by these paintings of the local peasants. Their religion and philosophy is being studied in the major universities of the West. Herbert Benson of Havard published a groundbreaking book called "The Relaxation Response" based on his work with Tibetan Lamas. As matter of fact the traditional form of art , the thanka painting is not done for profit. It is done and commissioned for religious purposes only. They should never be sold, though they are in the West.

For really evocative and sensitive pictures of Tibetan culture I suggest you look to the photographs of Mathieu Ricard.

A great deal of Asian art came into Europe in the latter part of the 19th century. Intelligent artists like Mary Cassatt and Gauguin among other assimilated the inherent flatness of the Japanese and Chinese work into their own. It was not an Asian pastiche, but an intelligent adaptation of another culture vis-a-vis their own artistic explorations.

As to portraiture, it is consiously done for money. There is no disguise, it is very straightforward, some of it achieves more, some does not.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Sharon, why do you think that images of Tibetan Peasants are any less sensitive than those images taken by Mr. Ricard? Don't they show another aspect of this highly complicated culture? Does your disagreement with peasant imagery develop from the fact that there is an abundance of representation vs the lack of other Tibetan themes, such as religious imagery?

I can't comment on Mr. Burdick since I know nothing of him and only glanced at his work. I have seen similar images though from many other artists. Maybe this theme has become popular and is in danger of exploitation as well.

[Kimberly Dow]

I'm trying to follow this thread. Sharon, Im curious. What is the difference between an artist painting peasants in another country they are visiting or painting a scene with street folk in a part of their own city they do not often visit?

I get part of this argument - I live in west Texas and could make a mint painting cowboys, but I'd feel like an imposter since I know nothing about it. There is a fella down the road who owns a ranch and lived here all his life. He paints western and makes a fine living at it. His references come from his own cattle, family and other ranchers round-ups. He is qualified to paint this life.

I guess I'd hate to see an artist judged that if they are not truly knowledgable about a subject....they shouldnt paint it. I'm not intimate with some landscapes I have seen, but I have painted them anyway because they are beautiful.

I have to admith though - I am more comfortable painting New England scenes where I grew up than I am Texas landscapes where I've been for 10 years. I feel I know and love the landscape up there much more than I do the terrain here. I thought it was just that I didnt appreciate the Texas beauty as much as the greens up norht - but maybe it has more to do with feeling intimate with the area.

[Sharon Knettell]

Kim,

You put your finger on it. You are sensitive enough to realize that Texas cowboy pictures are not you. Doing paid portrait of westerners are important of your bottom line. That is where you live.

If you want to paint a beautiful landscape, feel free to paint it. If it is a good work of art it will stand on its own a does not need any kitschy baggage like, 'my life among the peasants'.

When you have a choice you do pictures like "See No Evil..." That is something you obviously love to do.

As to street scenes, how many more do we need, the subject has become trite and overworked. I think every country has been covered. I am sure if there was a street scene in Antarctica, someone would find away to do it.

I think artists, especially representational ones have become intellectually lazy. They keep repeating the same themes over and over again. Native peasants, Indians with back lighting and dashes of impressionism. The field is saturated. These and the pictures of the Tibetans are no more than illustrations. I think we have to consider more and paint less.

Enzie,

I think you should try to find some photographs of Mathieu Ricard and judge for yourself. They are exquisite and take your breath away. I think you would see the difference. It is hard to put in words,
I think my objection stems from the fact that he is painting only their surface, their picturesqueness, the easy aspect of representing a culture. The cheap snapshot. The artist is not a peasant, he is only exploiting them.

[Carolyn Ortiz]

This is a really interesting and timely discussion! Sorry if I get a little off topic...

I believe when historians will look back at the girls/ women in white dresses, or the many cowboy scenes, native americans in head dress, and to most work of people in costume made in this day, they might come to the conclusion that people didn't really accept themselves as they are now and their place in the modern world. I think they'll see most weren't proud of this lifestyle of lounging around in shorts and t-shirts watching t.v., or driving from A to B and I think they'll see that there was a lack of culture that people were trying to find, even by recreating images of the passed.

If an artist is on vacation and they paint scenes of the people they meet or see, it's a way of chronicling their own lives as much as it is showing the new world they've been lucky enough to witness. When Sargent took a trip to Spain he created many paintings of spanish dancers with beautiful dresses and bright colors. I'm sure he didn't think he was exploiting them, he was just sharing in his work what captivated him. I believe it's more of an admiration of those things that are different from ourselves that some of us are attracted to and wish to capture in our work. Not for exploitation purposes, but for just trying to capture some of the beauty in the world that is going on in our life time. And some of us may feel we have to look outside of our own culture to find it.

I don't see Sargent's painting of a Parisian begger girl as exploitation. I've often thought about doing a portrait of a woman who lives near me on the sidewalk with her pet bunny. I just think she embodies the "interesting" aspect that a lot of ordinary people may not exude as well (and of course I'd pay her.). I see her so many days she has become part of my own life.

This Saturday my husband and I will be going on a two week trip to Senegal, Africa. And I can not wait to see what life is like there. I know I will be taking hundreds of photos and I hope some will be great references to work from. I'm excited to try to paint the rich colors of the dark skin and the lovely features that are different from my own. It will not only be a record of my own life and what I've seen but will hopefully share the beauty I find in another culture as well.

[Tom Edgerton]

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions so far. I think this is an interesting and important topic.

It's hard for me to accept that "to paint one, you have to be one." I thinks it's a legitimate thing for an artist to record their reactions and impressions of another culture. Sharon's right, it has to be done with some intellect and sensitivity driving it, but to say that I can't paint cowboys because I'm not one is pretty hard for me to swallow. I don't, but I'd like to be able to if I chose, without being accused of cultural theft. As always, the art is a record of an interaction with the subject, not a literal depiction of the subject--even in photography. So it's as much about the artist as the subject.

One of my favorite painters is JW Waterhouse. He obviously wasn't there for the historic and allegorical events that he depicted, so if the above litmus test were to be applied, a lot of very good paintings would not have been painted. But I also think my appreciation of him stems from my looking past the content to the technique. A lot of the pre-Raphaelite and Victorian schmaltz makes my skin crawl--it's just that with Waterhouse, it's not so over the top, as with some of his contemporaries like Alma-Tadema, Bouguereau (please, let's don't go there again), and Rosetti.

We all agree that sexism, racism and cultural exploitation are bad. But to discern another artist's motives and intent is very hard to do, and what should be an obvious discussion becomes immediately very nuanced and fuzzy.

Sharon and I may never agree about a particular artist in this regard, but she's raised some very compelling and important points, maybe the most important being that, once in a while, it's a good idea to question one's own motives and point of view when portraying a given theme.

But upon further reflection, even this is not easy and clear cut. A case in point would be Burt Silverman's paintings of female exotic dancers--a theme he has revisited off and on throughout his career. The paintings have been castigated by some as exploitive because of their straightforward, unromanticized point of view. But his explanation of their evolution has been that he has been working out his own reaction to the women and how they collide with both his private inner world and our overall cultural attitudes about sex. Mr. Silverman would be the first to admit that he's not entirely clear and never has been about the pull this subject has for him. Doesn't an artist need to have the latitude to work without necessarily understanding exactly what his or her motives are--thus the art becomes the mechanism for "working things out?"

But to complicate the discussion further, at times some of the Silverman "Dancer" paintings have been subsequently sold, so the use to which they have been put has changed based on the needs of the artist at the moment. Does this make them exploitive?

Anyone?