Your Thoughts about Orientalism

[Sharon Knettell]

So many paintings, so little that is honest.

I am not a fan of recreating images of quaint natives in present day costume or recreations of days gone by. The trend toward the nostalgic, is intellectually dishonest and an easy prey for an artist who is too lazy to come up with an original point of view. Nostalgia is a dangerous trend, it is fascist, by its very nature. It is the kind of art that was promoted by Hitler in the Third Reich, charming quaint pictures of the perfect German family in their country costumes.

In that vein, I think the paintings of the Tibetans are exploitive, as are the colorful Indians of the West. I happen to have many Tibetan friends and I think that they would find these paintings condescending.

[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.