5 Comments
User's avatar
I Like Things's avatar

I like this

unpredictable cause's avatar

Why paint? Perhaps it's a question without an answer, at least not one that justifies painting – born only from the pleasure of doing it, in the belief that the simple is preferable to the complicated, without the expectation of what it might become, and existing without a plan for how it will become useful to others (others will find a solution for that). Or an answer that doesn't consider what the artwork becomes after leaving the painter's hands, a field of extraneous ideas focused on what lies beyond the work. Is that why things fail? In any case, the question can be reformulated – Do we need to relearn how to see art? Perhaps it would help if we weren't constantly under an avalanche of such a quantity of information and images.

james w's avatar

Super relevant and well written. I gotta say though, as a painter, I do take this conclusion as a comfort!.. the work ahead is exciting work.

Anna Moss's avatar

Langberg's painting is literally titled Haemek and the smatterings of blood as paint make it pretty unsettling to anyone that spends more than five seconds looking at it, so your claim that it's an 'otherwise inoffensive landscape painting' is a little bold. What did you need Langberg to do? Paint hyperrealistic faces? Scrawl 'GENOCIDE' on the side of the canvas? You're talking about this painting as if it's a decorative image and it simply isn't; you may find it a little too apolitical for your taste, but it's not a random or traditionally pleasing composition.

Matt Moment's avatar

Such a thoughtful and engaging essay on a topic that can be so drab in the wrong hands.