plein-air as medium rather than tradition or genre

[roodiculous]

I am currently in the process of writing my dissertation for my Masters of Fine Art in painting. My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice.

I would appreciate it if anyone would like to compare/contrast plein-air as a specific artistic medium (akin to working in oil, printmaking or digital media) with its own technical and conceptual concerns.

I've been painting realist urban scenes in Sydney, Australia for the past two years while studying my MFA. I have noticed a huge difference in the small panels I create on the spot compared with most other urban realist paintings (especially ones created from photos) and would like to explore those differences.

Thanks in advance for any light you may shead on my project.

R

[chaosrocks]

I am currently in the process of writing my dissertation for my Masters of Fine Art in painting. My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice.

R

I think you are about as wrong as you can get here. In training the eye for observation as well as in getting you butt oout of the computer chair so it doesn't attain house size perportions... Plein air drawing and painting is an incredibly productive and useful discipline. It seems that you would only make the above statement in an effort to get a reaxion from traditional artists. I seem s tot me that anyone who ever needs to create an environment for a painting would be served well by actually goiing outside a attempting to translate the actualll 3d environment in to 2d form

[Seedling]

Oil paints, acrylics, watercolor, burnt stick on a cave wall – these things are mediums. Plein air – painting from life outdoors, that’s a subject and a technique.

Who cares what the tradition around plein air is or was? Paint outdoors if it helps you to learn what you want to learn, or if it is fun for you, or if it produces the sort of finished product that you would like to produce.

I’ll be heading outdoors this afternoon myself for some plein air fun and education. Despite this being Sunday, I am not a Sunday painter.

By the way, if you haven’t discovered this book already, you need to read “Alla Prima; Everything I Know About Painting” by Richard Schmid, who is a contemporary master of plein air painting.

[roodiculous]

'I think you are about as wrong as you can get here. In training the eye for observation as well as in getting you butt oout of the computer chair so it doesn't attain house size perportions... Plein air drawing and painting is an incredibly productive and useful discipline. It seems that you would only make the above statement in an effort to get a reaxion from traditional artists.'

I'm not sure that you understood my point. The paintings I create are all executed en plein-air and I'm trying to make an argument that it is still a valid way of working.

'Who cares what the tradition around plein air is or was? Paint outdoors if it helps you to learn what you want to learn, or if it is fun for you, or if it produces the sort of finished product that you would like to produce.'

Who cares? The Acadamy most certainly does. Keep in mind this argument is supporting a Master's thesis which, as the requirements state: "must contribute to the development of the field". I think this is important to consider, otherwise you could have contemporary artists receiving MFA's while working in outdated modes (i.e. cubism, minimalism, etc.)
For the past ten years I have been working en plein-air and all I have heard from the contemporary art establishment is that I'm supposedly stuck in an outmoded 'Impressionist' manner of painting.
The Impressionists did put the capital 'P' in Plein-air, but it is my belief that even when their picturesque, atmospheric views of provencial France became outdated toward the end of the nineteeth century, their working method did not. This is where the argument for plein-air as a medium becomes important.

'Oil paints, acrylics, watercolor, burnt stick on a cave wall – these things are mediums. Plein air – painting from life outdoors, that’s a subject and a technique.'

As a technique or subject, again, it's importance relies on when that technique or subject was invented, developed and eventually made redundant by exhaustive exploration (consider 'pointilism'). I believe this is what happened in the case of the Impressionists. Each one of them explored a different part of painting plein-air in France; Monet the countryside, Utrillo the city, Renoir that figure, etc. until there was no more room for innovation.
Personally, I think 'Sunday painting' is trying to relive the 'atmospheric picturesque' of the Impressionists and is seen as outdated because of it. My own plein-air painting, however, is concerned with promoting outdoor painting as a meaningful activity rather than a useful artistic tool. Referring to plein-air as a medium then, I hope to also connect with contemporary outdoor artists like Andrew Goldsworthy and Christo. My aim is to broaden the context for plein-air and help to keep its practice relevant.

I hope that elucidates the distinction more clearly.

R

[Seedling]

Hello Rood.

To be fair, I should tell you that I think it is absurd to have a master’s degree in art in the first place. "Must contribute to the development of the field", indeed! This isn’t science, it’s craft. It’s about entertainment and communication, not discovering more of how the universe works.

The fine arts establishment is a bunch of snobs in a little club who like to wow people with money by spewing “deep” verbiage about art that’s often quite lousy. You don’t need a bunch of out-of-touch self-congratulatory nobodies to tell you it’s okay to make what you want to.

Putting landscape painting in the same bucket as Goldsworthy and Christo is a bit wacky. But, whatever floats your boat. Your immediate problem seems to be surviving the big final bullshit-spew of getting a master’s in art. Your goal “to broaden the context for plein-air and help to keep its practice relevant” seems like a good starting point for a good meaty, pointless debate. Personally I would rather gouge out my own eyes than get into such a dead-end discussion. I’m more interested in discussing the broken state of art education. Why the system has lined things up so that writing about wishy-washy ideas is more important than producing masterful pieces of craft is beyond me.

Art buyers will only care about your degree if they are pompous asses trying to justify an absurdly expensive purchase that was made not because they liked the art, but because they were trying to keep up with the neighbors. And in that case, you might as well sell them a golf trophy with a bunch of plastic cows glued to it, because they are too stupid to appreciate how moving and beautiful and unique your vision is, and how elegantly you have expressed it with your expert craftsmanship.

Eh. . . sorry for the rant. I hope you are getting what you need out of your education. I would love to see some of your work, and I promise I won’t go all ranty again if you decide to share.

By the way. . . try the button in the bottom right labeled “quote”.

Cheers. :bashful:

[chaosrocks]

so let me get this straight
you said

"My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice."

um
and I am not suppose to find this derogatory about Pleinair painting?

chaos

[otis]

This isn’t science, it’s craft. It’s about entertainment and communication, not discovering more of how the universe works.

LOL!

I have heard from the contemporary art establishment is that I'm supposedly stuck in an outmoded 'Impressionist' manner of painting.

Rood, maybe they are telling you this becuase that's all they see you doing?
For a masters student in art, I sure hope you are capable of painting more than just "en Plein air".

I love you analytical types though. You are always looking to justify the purpose of everything. Including yourself.

Tip: You don't have to justify ANYTHING in Art. There are no rules.

[otis]

it's importance relies on when that technique or subject was invented, developed and eventually made redundant by exhaustive exploration

LOL! Do you actually think "art techniques or subjects " are invented, explored.. and eventually become obsolete..like a technology or somthing? Don't be so full of yourself. LOL!

Humans have been creating art before the "invention" of fire.
Oh, but you probably think those cave paintings were just crude drawings.
Or the Egyptians just could never figure out how to draw in perspective.
Or the greeks were the first to pursue realism.

Are you sure you are getting a higher education in art? Or just filling your analytical ego with B.S.?

[Penabled]

I think the largest problem with your thesis is the assumption that "en plein air" or "alfresco" is a medium rather than a technique or more directly, a location. The term itself simply means "in open air" and does not imply that the air itself is used to paint with. Not to be rude...but if you don't understand the difference, perhaps you are not learning what you should at this school. Or perhaps your teacher is not communicating well.

As to whether it is still commonly practiced in modern art... of course it is. However in my particular corner of the globe we still get more rainy or overcast days than we do sunny ones. Painting outdoors in a torrential rainstorm is never a good idea. In my mother's art association, there are still several artists who paint in "open air" when weather permits. So I would say that yours or anyone else's observation that it has become a practice used by "Sunday Painters" is wholly innaccurate and wrong.

[Ilaekae]

Ummmm....

I paint images of the political/corporate/neo-fascist gods dismembering the body peon for raw materials for sustenance, and I do it outside because I have six cats and four studios currently filled with boxes of shit. Does this mean I'm a Sunday painter, even if I do it on Monday and Tuesday, or should i reconfigure my schedules so as to not upset the modern artistic conventions that I seem to have no awareness of...?

[roodiculous]

Sorry for trying to tap your brains about something you don't feel comfortable talking about. You can check out my stuff at
www.rudykistler.com

that's it for me...r

[Maxine Schacker]

Try seeing what you are painting as a mosaic of shapes of color. Try exact matching the color you see. You will learn a great deal about painting that will change the way you work and how you use color. I suggest working from life for a long time before attempting to work from your imagination: your brain, like a computer, needs the information.People who haven't learned to "see" often "color" instead of painting. Art is about so much more than making something look like what it is. I suggest that you read "Hawthorne On Painting."

I looked at your work and think you really need to do some plein air work.Try getting some joy and vibrancy into your work. You certainly have developed some skills, but your work could be so much better! Once you've done some plein air work you'll be in a better position to write your thesis.

[chaosrocks]

we seem to be talking about it. you seem to be looking for affirmation of something and you don't appear to be getting it. How on earth do you get the impression we're uncomfortable talking about it. We talk about everything. incessently.

you have recieved several well thought out and concise answers on what we best percieved as your question. Some from professionals and leaders in their fields. If you are not getting the response to the question that you wanted perhaps it would be wise to re-evaleate the the question itself.
chaos

[Cookiedough]

Just cos i'm curious: what's your goal with this? What is it really contributing? So someone who'll read it will go, "oh, i won't paint on Sundays?"

It seems like you're writing a thesis about something that mainly annoys you, not something that inspires you or you really wanna learn something about. It's harder to write such a thesis, as you've already made up your mind and will write everything only to support your prejudice. If you'd argue about how to IMPROVE plein air painting or would compare work enviroments and then find how it effects the final results, it would actually be more informative. Cos with your current argument, you're more investigating what the hobby of elderly people in Sydney is and their leisuretime on Sundays.

About plein air.... It's just a location and you get to deal with other elements. Some prefer open air, some like a heater. It's a personal decision that's not really related to art.

[Seedling]

Sorry for trying to tap your brains about something you don't feel comfortable talking about.

Aww, shucks Roodi, I didn’t mean to scare you off. It’s not that I don’t feel comfortable talking about opinions of the art establishment on plein air paintings, it’s that I think it’s a trivial topic to get riled up about or to write a big paper on. As an activity, either on a professional level or a “Sunday painter” level, I think painting outdoors a fantastic thing to do. (I was just out huddled under a theater awning this morning painting a rainy street scene, myself.)

I tell you what – if you really want to test out a thesis, posting about it here will get you a thorough test, indeed. You’ll have to really, truly defend what you say, and you’ll have to present some seriously sturdy evidence if you’re going to start with a wacky hypothesis. We’re not mean here for the sake of meanness. If we appear mean it is only because we have a strong desire to learn and to teach, and with that a low tolerance for baloney. Because of this, we can help you remove the baloney from your thesis, if you so choose.

I think you have interesting things to say and I hope you’ll stick around CA. Your paintings and drawings are lovely, particularly those first four painted landscapes.



I looked at your work and think you really need to do some plein air work.

Um, Maxine, are you looking at the right website?

[otis]

Sorry for trying to tap your brains about something you don't feel comfortable talking about

Sounds like your the one not comfortable Chief. Sorry to hear that.
BTW, I like your work. ( I'm not being sarcastic) Just make sure your MFA brain doesn't get in the way of your creative process.:wink:

I have heard from the contemporary art establishment is that I'm supposedly stuck in an outmoded 'Impressionist' manner of painting.

Just keep doing your "thing" and don't worry about is or isn't "outmoded".
BTW, plein-air painting is not a tradition. Its just what it says it is: Painting outside.
If you ask me, it's not even "fine art". To me it's just doing a study of somthing outside.

Your Sydney portfolio is far from "typical plein-air" paintings. I like how your work is distinguishable. I live in Laguna Beach, and I see way too many Plein-Air paintings that look like they were all painted by the same artist. (I guess that's what happens when everyone is just doing a study.)

BTW this is great! http://www.rudykistler.com/mediac/400_0/media/Abstract~25.jpg

[Bowlin]

so let me get this straight
you said

"My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice."

um
and I am not suppose to find this derogatory about Pleinair painting?

chaos


Chaos... He is saying "The Acadamy" views plein-air as "sunday paintings". He is NOT saying plein-air is sunday paintings. In other words, he is saying that his school, the fine art communty in general is viewing plein air as hobby painting instead of fine art. He's defending plein-air with his thesis.

..."must contribute to the development of the field". I think this is important to consider, otherwise you could have contemporary artists receiving MFA's while working in outdated modes (i.e. cubism, minimalism, etc.)

He's saying that contemporary art in cubism, minimalism, etc. is outdated while his idea of plein air "working method" is not. Again, I beleive he's saying that colleges are producing artist that are doing contemporary art like cubism, minimalism, etc. ... making virtually the same paintings over and over from ideas that artist dead and gone came up with. While he is making a new perspective at making and appreciating plein-air?

Sounds like he ought to just call his approach as something else then. "Plein-air Ruby style". or "Modèle Rouge". Explain how this up and coming new style is causing great debate with people from all over the world (conceptart.org). heheh.


"must contribute to the development of the field"

I don't think there's any way to determine if there's being development in the field of fine art. I don't recall new art movements being made within the same lifetime of "outdated" art movements. New art movements are made in comparison of the old ones long dead and gone. Artist don't set out to make a new one, it's contemporary art in the time it's made and appreciated. Contemporary art now-a-days thinks that they are making new movements, but they're really just trying to force people to appreciate pictures that they don't understand and using their insecurities about their limited knowledge of fine art to do it with.

My two cents.

[otis]

Contemporary art now-a-days thinks that they are making new movements, but they're really just trying to force people to appreciate pictures that they don't understand and using their insecurities about their limited knowledge of fine art to do it with.

LOL! So true. So true.

[chaosrocks]

um he said it actually as the premise of his thesis.. I think he's doing a devils advocate thing...but still thats his thesis sentence. BUt sinc ehe's dosmissed us all as worthless cowards... it's kinda moot anyway. I'm gonna go on plein air painting cause I like toand I think its a valuable discipline and I dont really give a fllying...what the Academy thinks (end rant)
chaos

chaos

[Seedling]

My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice.

I'm trying to make an argument that it is still a valid way of working.

My aim is to broaden the context for plein-air and help to keep its practice relevant.

Yo. He has confused you guys because under all of the verbiage he just wasn’t communicating well.

I hope that elucidates the distinction more clearly.

Friends don’t let friends use words like “elucidate” in casual conversation.

[chaosrocks]

or verbiage....my dear friend....:P

yeah he's not altogether sure what hes trying to say

and of course elucidates it the wrong word anyway....

chaos

[roodiculous]

First off, thanks to Bowlin for actually reading what I had to say. I think the rest of you are just here to pick a fight, and frankly I don't have time. If anyone wants to seriously enter into a polemic about my actual proposition, I would sincerely welcome it. Otherwise, choose a different thread to harrass. For those interested, here's a sample of one of the chapters.

The word ‘medium’ is listed in the dictionary as the category of a work of art, as determined by its materials and methods of production; the materials used in a work of art. The first part of the definition refers to a specific ‘field’ within the visual arts, i.e. ‘oil painting’, ‘relief printing’ or ‘installation’ that would denote contextual exclusivity within the greater arena of the ‘Visual Arts’. A medium, in this sense becomes the tool or vehicle with which the artist seeks to realize a work of art.

Medium as a tool is use specific, its relevance ends when it is no longer useful. Fresco painting’s usefulness, as a medium for murals can be thought of as redundant because of the invention of acrylic paint. Tradition or Genre, as style, are time or period specific and become ineffective when they no longer reflect the era in which they are being used. The tradition of Russian ‘Social Realist Painting’ eventually lost its poignancy, ending in the 1980s alongside its sociological model. The realism of Corot’s sketches and the semi-abstractions of the Impressionists’ canvases are part of the tradition they were working within, the plein-air method they both employed was the tool.

Contemporary art practice has extended the relevance of certain mediums by employing them in a non-traditional way. Ben Shahn has explored new territory in egg tempera, the second oldest painting medium (next to encaustic), with his linear and abstract images of humanity.

Viewing plein-air as a medium in this regard, it becomes possible to link artists who would otherwise seem to exhibit completely different motives. Comparing the finished works of Fred Williams and Tom Roberts (famous Australian artists) seems futile until one realizes that neither artist could have created what they did, had they not been employing plein-air as the vehicle.

[Penabled]

Well...I did not miss the intent of your original post...I just disagree that so much should be associated/connected to Impressionistic painting simply because of where you are choosing to do the painting. To me it is simply a location....not a medium, not a technique. Sometimes I believe that we have all of these different styles and techniques simply because some snobbish erudite wanted to impress their friends by buying an art piece that they could not critique because they didn't understand the technique used to create it.

[chaosrocks]

First off, thanks to Bowlin for actually reading what I had to say. I think the rest of you are just here to pick a fight, and frankly I don't have time.

un-kind and frankly, rude. I personally read every word of it. and if I , and somany other many of whom are academically trained and ues to reading this type of stuff, misunderstood what you had to say perhaps you are not making yourself clear

If anyone wants to seriously enter into a polemic about my actual proposition, I would sincerely welcome it. Otherwise, choose a different thread to harrass. For those interested, here's a sample of one of the chapters.

please do not keep insisting that this is adversary. it isn't. I am a blunt person I will tellyou honestly and in short consise language what I think

The word ‘medium’ is listed in the dictionary as the category of a work of art, as determined by its materials and methods of production; the materials used in a work of art. The first part of the definition refers to a specific ‘field’ within the visual arts, i.e. ‘oil painting’, ‘relief printing’ or ‘installation’ that would denote contextual exclusivity within the greater arena of the ‘Visual Arts’.

I find the concept of contextual exclusivity a bit of a stretch. one of the primary ideas in most of these fields is to stretch the medium, one consequence is Mixed media. Im not sure Contextual is the word you want here

A medium, in this sense becomes the tool or vehicle with which the artist seeks to realize a work of art.

Which to jump ahead a little, plein air is not. It is merely a location. and can be captured in any medium (well you can try in any medium) or style for that matter. its like saying a selfportrait is a medium..it just doesn't work.

Medium as a tool is use specific, its relevance ends when it is no longer useful. Fresco painting’s usefulness, as a medium for murals can be thought of as redundant because of the invention of acrylic paint. Tradition or Genre, as style, are time or period specific and become ineffective when they no longer reflect the era in which they are being used. The tradition of Russian ‘Social Realist Painting’ eventually lost its poignancy, ending in the 1980s alongside its sociological model. The realism of Corot’s sketches and the semi-abstractions of the Impressionists’ canvases are part of the tradition they were working within, the plein-air method they both employed was the tool.

Hmm are you sure dismissing all these historical methods is valid? I know artists doing amazing political work in woocuts, look at the work of Cara Walker for the first exampple that pops to mind. charcoal ink and papercuts.
I really don't think the content and imagery is at all defined by the medium

Contemporary art practice has extended the relevance of certain mediums by employing them in a non-traditional way. Ben Shahn has explored new territory in egg tempera, the second oldest painting medium (next to encaustic), with his linear and abstract images of humanity.

you are arguing both sides here it is one of the places where you are unclear as to what your intent is

Viewing plein-air as a medium in this regard, it becomes possible to link artists who would otherwise seem to exhibit completely different motives. Comparing the finished works of Fred Williams and Tom Roberts (famous Australian artists) seems futile until one realizes that neither artist could have created what they did, had they not been employing plein-air as the vehicle.

YOu still haven't convinced me that "Plein air is a medium" maybe they both work in Plein air. but they worked in some medium. and no I haven't looked them up sorry....

as you see I am reading every word. And Im having trouble following your logical progression..I would think this is actually the kind of information you need

respectfully
chaos

[dose]

I think you're falling into one of the classic logical fallacies:

- Things used to get from point A to point B are called vehicles.
- A road is used to get from point A to point B.
- Therefore, a road is a vehicle.

[Seedling]

or verbiage....my dear friend....:P

I’ve been pw0ned! :-)

Chaos, you’ve said everything I could possibly think to reply with, only better than I could.

Rood, you don’t like my reaction to what you wrote. And because of that, you are telling me that I haven’t read what you wrote and that I am picking a fight. I suggest you get used to the idea that there are people in the world who will say in plain English that they disagree with you, because when it comes time to defend that dissertation, you are going to have to face such plain-spoken disagreement head-on in order to get your master’s degree.

It remains that the idea of “plein-air is a medium” is a foolish position to defend. Bucket-loads of writing may deter people from reading your paper, and thus from contradicting you, but that will not alter the fact that you are building your paper around the logical fallacy that dose pointed out. You may as well be debating that squares are round.

The reason I point this out instead of walking away is that I would like to see you succeed at writing a powerful thesis and I would like to see you get your master’s degree.

[Bowlin]

The rest of the people on here aren't trying to harrass you, or give you a hard time. You have to read this site for awhile to understand how they're trying to be subjective, yet casual too. It sounds like a lot of misunderstanding. For example, it would have made better sense if you reworded this post like this?

Originally Posted by roodiculous
My main argument is that plein-air as a tradition, according to the Academy, seems to have devolved into 'Sunday painting' and no longer holds any relevance to contemporary art practice.

The problem I have had with art in college is that they do try to make it (it=understanding art, appreciating art and so on) overly sophisticated and we become conditioned by it. While, on the other hand, one of the main goals of most artist is to try and simplify visual... ideas (for lack of a better word) so that it will effectively communicate with people.

So don't worry, man, the people on here are genuinely trying to help you by giving you what they believe is a valid point... in casual conversation.

Anyway,
Medium as a tool is use specific,...
That definitely has to be reworded somehow. It doesn't make any sense.

It seems like your trying to use the word "medium" by the dictionary definition: A specific kind of artistic technique or means of expression as determined by the materials used or the creative methods involved: the medium of lithography.
The word medium can be used to describe a technique, or describe the materials involved. It sounds like your trying to use it to describe both at the same time. Your comparing egg tempra to plein air... it doesn't work. One is a material substance, the other a technique.

You said, ...its relevance ends when it is no longer useful.
I believe what your trying to say is that when any kind of painting substance, like Fresco, is replaced by another painting substance, the older painting substance (Fresco) is no longer favored. And so in comparison your saying that some techniques are invented but then replaced by newer more applicable techniques, making the old ones obsolete?

I don't think techniques get replace, but abandoned because they aren't appreciated anymore (as a working process or the end results). It sounds like your trying to find new end results that are obtained by using the plein air technique. Well then, hell, that's what your trying to use all diferent types of techniques for.

[otis]

Contemporary art practice has extended the relevance of certain mediums by employing them in a non-traditional way.

I'd argue that mediums don't ever become irrelevant or obsolete.

No medium has ever become obsolete. It's just serves different purposes in different times through history.
Purposes that are STILL relevant to all of us today.

So who cares what the medium is?

Rome used marble to tell their heroic stories on pillars and reliefs. Today we use film. Does this mean marble is an obsolete medium? No, becuase people still use it in "contemporary" art & sculpture. Not to mention millions of people still travel to Rome to see these magnificent pillars of art.

I can paint En Plein Air just like you but on a laptop computer. Does that mean Paint is obsolete?? I don't think so.

Just 2 different mediums. One isn't better then the other. That's relative to the artist.

[Maxine Schacker]

Seedling, you're right- I didn't express myself very well. What I was trying to say is that, especially in the figurative work and the still life, and in some of the landscape as well, this obviously talented man hasn't really practiced "plein air" painting, which is more than painting out of doors. It's about really seeing rather abstractly- learning to see by scanning and comparing and struggling to get exact matching of the large notes of color. When you do this a curtain lifts and suddenly you understand painting. If you get the big notes in their proper relation you'll get it all, space, color, texture- even personality! Its not all there is to painting but I really believe that if you
don't get this, you'll color instead of painting.Roodiculous, squint more and don't put down what you can't see squinting. Try using more paint- just for awhile- later you may want to paint indirectly and/or thinly. If this all sounds like Hawthorne, well, his book taught me more about painting than anyone I studied with.

I find it a bit upsetting that you think we have to defend the way we paint. Isn't art personal expression? That's what they say, but of course it's not what they mean. The fine art establishment of academics wants to tell us what we can and can't do. You can do anything you want- including reading what I've written and deciding you don't agree at all. I hope, however, that you'll try it - the thrill of it is addicting. The absolute beauty of learning to see and setting it down simply....