Your Thoughts about Orientalism

[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?

[Enzie Shahmiri]

It is fair to say that artists have a tendency to paint, that which has left an impression on them. As Carolyn points out, travel impressions are just another record of such experiences and I do not see the work of any artists, who has truthfully painted that what he has experienced first hand as exploitation.

As to allegorical or historical paintings, Tom has made a good point that most work was done after the fact. But if one calls himself a historical painter, then technique alone does not suffice, after all without detailed research any presentation of historical events could be misleading and fraught with error.

Carolyn, your argument about filling a void is an interesting one. When I visited Singapore my first impression was of disappointment. I was not expecting to see a street filled with Designer Stores and Starbucks. In contrast, when traveling to Bali, that experience gave me a sense of being in a far away land amongst people with an entirely different way of live. Seeing people go about their business in settings that is more in terms with their heritage is more appealing to me. I am not against progress, but

[Elizabeth Schott]

This is interesting Enzie.

Trying to read through and give everyone equal weight, I think everyone has touched on the reasons being...

We might say that the older guys were merely documenting their travels, but I would also think they became enamored by the people they found to be so different, it might have been the color of their costumes or the starkness of the surroundings, whatever grabbed them it was different.

Sharon you love to do dancers, did Degas paint dancers because of his passion for them (yes) did he continue to do it because it became financial lucrative? I am guessing yes.

One can feel the difference as Tom mentioned in the painting of a cowboy and the painting of a cowboy to have painted a cowboy, there is a feeling. But I really think contemporary artist still discover a passion for a subject and put it too financial use, I don't think it lessens the art, when as Tom referenced you can get the feel of the subject.

Does that make sense?

What else could have led this fella from Cincinnati, OH to paint this:

[I]Frank Duveneck, Guard of the Harem, Cincinnati Art Museum

[Allan Rahbek]

Beth,
This "Oriental" painting is a good example on what I was advocating. It has the abstract qualities that makes it interesting as a work of art.

If you don

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Artistic freedom as far as technique goes changes the dynamics of a painting. If the work is abstract then the subject matter tends to become secondary, with the technique taking center stage. When a work is realistic in nature, it's technique is in par with the subject. Both now acquire equal attention and that changes the dynamics between representation and content.

[Tom Edgerton]

By the way, the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute museum in Williamstown, MA has published a nice and not-too-expensive volume on Orientalism. Here's the link:

http://clarkart.stores.yahoo.net/nobdreamwicp.html

--Tom

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Thank you so much Tom! I will look it up.