In Favor of Painting From Life: An Artist’s Perspective, Historical Support, and It’s Relevance
- haleyindorato
- Dec 31, 2024
- 20 min read
Updated: Jan 6
Painting should reflect life in some way out of current political and social need, and in consideration for its history. There is an increasing trend in art to use the everyday as a vessel for searching for deeper meaning and to foster human connections. We live in an increasingly violent, unjust, spectacle society; aware and helpless against misinformation and un-education. Ever present online spaces dominate our everyday lives with unachievable ideals. Products and slogans shape our world view. Many of us are depressed, angry, and alone, longing for human connection and truth. Painting once had center stage in the world of art and has since lost its impact. Now relegated to the hobbies of retired teachers or good-looking influencers.
Once considered old fashioned, I believe paintings can and should turn back to traditions of reflecting life. They have the ability to rebel against corrupt systems meant to separate and oppress, as well as explore social anxieties and disparities. I say “turning back” not in a conservative sense. Only to mean representing the world around us is well established in painting. A means of acknowledging the medium’s history and not out of blind support for “tradition.” In favor of tapping into that history as justification.
Arguably, for a few hundred years at least, paintings and art have reacted to the changing political landscape. Modernism started with the politically motivated movement of Realism reacting to industrialization and its resulting social change. It makes sense then over the past couple years there has been an increase in “social realism”: paintings inspired by life often coinciding with increased social justice movements. When governments fail, hardships are numerous, and social ills plague the masses, paintings offer both a criticism and a moment of reflection on our society.
Much like character building in fiction writing, or narrative storytelling in music that draws on personal experience, paintings can use the subjective experience of the artist to connect with the audience. All art is influenced by the artist’s lived experiences or beliefs anyways. Acknowledging and embracing what is important to one as an artist can help underlie its significance to others as well. None of us are separate from outside forces, environments and systems that we live in. Especially in the time we live in now, where governments, economies, and climate change have real impacts on daily life. When I talk about the history of painting, I usually mean the history of oil painting in Western European art. Oils were long the privilege of the wealthy and powerful to commission and own. More importantly it involves centuries of figurative, realistic depiction of both quiet moments, and political and divine events.
In our current times, painting and visual arts in general are rarely seen by the average person. Most people derive meaning and enjoyment from time based media like movies or music videos. These time based formats are most similar to storytelling; another creative tendency we’ve evolved to share. Due to the internet and ability to share globally, music and videos have become more accessible and therefore more popular with the masses. Meanwhile paintings and sculpture lose their scale; losing their impact and losing attention. I believe painting can connect with people again by exploring intimate moments inspired by real life.
Not only is there historical precedent for painting to include figures, environments, and objects from everyday life, there are also ideas surrounding other art forms from other thinkers that support my philosophy. Yanagi Soetsu’s “The Beauty of Miscellaneous Things”, Nicolas Bourriard’s “Relational Aesthetics” and Claire Bishops response “Antagonism in Relational Aesthetics,” Plato’s “Republic X”, Walter Benjamin's “Image in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, are just some writings that are relevant to painting reflecting life. Art movements like Social Realism, the Pictures Generation, and Hyperrealism have relevant ideas too. As well as recent representational artists and the positive reception to their work.
Yanagi Soetsu (1889-1961) was a Japanese critic, philosopher, and founder of the mingei (folk craft) movement in Japan as well as the first director of the Japanese Folk Craft Museum. His essay “The Beauty of Miscellaneous Things” (1926) is about how overlooked, everyday objects are beautiful, and I think that this can apply to painting as well. To Yanagi, miscellaneous objects are anything that is used everyday, common, and replaceable. They are typically mass produced, cheap to buy, and simple. At the time of writing this essay, Japan was going through industrialization. Many household objects were previously handmade by poor craftspeople. These handmade objects were often overlooked by historians and art critics. Yanagi believed these items were beautiful because of their simple forms and absentminded creation. The people who made them had to make large quantities in order to make a living. As a result, they became masters at their techniques. This allowed them to talk and work without thinking too hard about what they were doing. To Yanagi, this state allowed nature to take over, leading to endless variations of the simple beauty of the same object.
The objects are purely utilitarian: their material and form based on what was needed, the decoration kept to a minimum. One of Yanagi’s reasons for defining beauty this way stems from growing up in Japan. In another essay “The Japanese Perspective” (1957), Yanagi points to Mahayana Buddhism as influences to why Japanese people value simplicity and usefulness as beauty. In this form of Buddhism the absence of self is applied to all things; referred to as ‘shunyata’ or emptiness. Nothing has essence and everything exists based on the dependence of other things existing. These objects are all meant to be used. The more people would use the object, the greater a relationship and love they would have for the object, and the greater its beauty.
This idea that the common, often undervalued, useful object is beautiful can provide a lot to
representative painting. As people, we understand the world around us and ourselves based on our surrounding environments and objects. People have made objects forever. It’s part of our evolution. Especially in consumer America, we develop relationships to the objects in our lives. Whether they’re objects we need to use to survive, family heirlooms handed
down through generations, or even cheap mass produced products we’re convinced to buy, our lives are defined by objects.
While the beauty of Greeks and Western based art is often based on perfection, Japanese art finds beauty in imperfection. For miscellaneous objects, this comes from cracks and wear from their continued use. As the objects are used, we identify more with them, and in turn they shape our lives. Representing these well used objects is symbolic of ourselves. Cracks and all. Depicting the imperfect in painting captures the lived human experience and beauty of our humble lives.
Beauty is a trait that cannot avoid consideration when painting. The average person wants to look at beautiful paintings, either in subject matter or surface quality. To deliberately make an “ugly” painting is to reject expectations for the medium. Regardless of political motivation, a painting's only function is to be looked at. Our sense of vision is heavily linked to desire. Along with beauty, desire has always been present in painting. Initial sexual attraction, arousing images, yummy food; the most desirable things are often perceived through sight. Not that other senses don’t produce a feeling of desire in us, just that sight’s association is so dominant.
Additionally, contemporary painters take on a similar role as the unnamed craftsmen. Going off of Buddhist beliefs, poverty and absentmindedness allows makers of everyday objects to reach enlightenment. Yanagi seems to celebrate the masses and the poorer working class. For a multitude of reasons, many painters and artists struggle to make enough money to sustain their practice, let alone be an artist full time. Though not all artists are poor. Art making has become a luxury of the wealthy. Trust-fund, Nepo babies or celebrities find success faster in art because they don’t have to worry about putting food on the table or paying rent. However, in general painting is one of the more accessible mediums the average person could afford (considering cheaper material alternatives). The availability of the materials and ability to represent the common restores painting to a suitable medium for political art. The poor masses or common everyday people are the ones creating the beauty and are themselves beautiful subjects worthy of consideration.
Contemporary representational painting from life has the same potential. The artist spends a long time making or living with a piece, allowing time to meditate on the subject. Often the time spent can be detected by viewers at the end. Even just the idea that someone spent 60+ hours painting everyday life will lead some viewers to consider the value of the common subjects. Combined with social realist trends, representational painting has immense potential to be a medium for the people. Gone from preserving conservative sensibilities to rebelling against fascist systems and the status quo.
Yanagi also mentions e-soragoto (art [picture] is fantasy). He describes it as, “the quest for truth that goes beyond truth.” The idea that picture based art is fantasy or false while searching for a deeper truth is fundamental to painting. Yanagi believed that while Japanese search for natural beauty, often found in the simple forms and poor everyday, Western art seeks the strange and extraordinary. Living in post-modernist America, I think both perspectives are important to consider in representative paintings. This country is a melting pot and a mix of cultures and ideas. It's always been inspired by combinations of differing perspectives. There's also a long history of groups being overlooked, ignored, and oppressed. Plus, when considering art on a global scale, the history of all art needs to be acknowledged. Especially different means of representation. The natural simplicity of our everyday life and the relationships between us and our surroundings are worthy of consideration. There are also strange and fantastical almost unreal aspects about everyday life that should be painted as well. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Another set of ideas from different art media that support painting from life comes from Nicolous Bourriard’s book “Relational Aesthetics” (1998). The title ended up being used to define a performance and installation art movement; many of the artists Bourriard curated himself at gallery shows. Bourriard defines relational aesthetics as “a set of artistic principles which take as their theoretical and practical point of departure the whole of human relations and their social context, rather than an independent and private space.” Basically art that was inspired by and meant to foster human relations. Famous pieces from this movement include Rirkrit Tiravanija’s “untitled (free)” (1992) where the artist transformed the gallery into a kitchen space and cooked for anyone who visited the gallery. Or installation pieces by Liam Gillicks that take on the appearance of office spaces, bus stops, and meeting rooms. Installations meant to be ignored, for people to talk to each other instead of looking at work. Art became a place of connection. Outside of relational aesthetics the average painting is often treated as a backdrop, a decoration for a room where social interaction takes place.
Bourriard’s writing and these artists' interest in human interaction was inspired by the internet boom of the 90s. A new, digital space for interaction emerged, along with changing mental and social spaces. Now there were new ways for people to meet and talk with each other, but losing something important in the process. Even today one could instantly talk with someone on the opposite side of the world, but a genuine sense of connection and forming meaningful relationships can be difficult. Social anxieties have increased both online and in real life. I was born in 2000 and the internet is an inseparable/defining aspect of life. I even see generations younger than me unable to separate online from real life. To some people, the digital world is more real than the physical world. I’d say what happens online is just as real (not necessarily more true), or at least has lasting impacts on individuals and society. If paintings should reflect life, and online spaces are part of life, then digital and online spaces are environments that should be included in contemporary painting as well.
Contemporary painting needs to take/already exists in a middle position between forgettable relational aesthetic installations and communication focused political art. I find these days, less people engage with visual arts, but especially painting. Unless someone is part of the art world or living in a major art city, the average person will rarely go look at art unless a social media algorithm recommends it on a “for you” page. Even then, if social media is the only exposure to painting, the quality is often lacking. By painting from everyday life, I hope there will be enough familiarity that viewers can re-engage with painting. Either through identifiable objects, places, or actions of figures.
Viewers tend to be drawn to relatable, representational paintings in the same way a video of cats hugging is “literally us” (the cats of course are me and my boyfriend in love). If relational aesthetics is about human connection, allow viewers to connect by showing the humanness of our existence. This is already reflected a bit in new social realism paintings: seeing a range of people represented so more viewers will see themselves or friends and family in painting. It’s catching up for the hundreds of years of lack of representation or demonizing depiction of anyone outside of wealthy western male society. There is still a lot of room for growth and different perspectives.
Claire Bishop expanded further on Bourriard’s writings in “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” (2004). Most art in this movement prioritized use over aesthetics. Much like how Yanagi valued utilitarian use over decoration with miscellaneous objects. Artworks from relational aesthetics also tended to make use of existing cultural forms or other art and remix them. This blurred individual authorship is again like objects Yanagi loves. I don’t think painting can ever reject authorship. Even if many people work on a painting, there is a legacy of genius, similar to directors getting the main credit for movies. However, acknowledging and borrowing from other art and cultures has a place in painting. A borrowing, collecting, and piling up tendency are dominant traits of postmodernism in general. If relational aesthetics is an early movement to react to the internet, and if painting is reflecting life that includes the internet, then borrowing and referencing should be included. Remixing materials others have made is a key habit in online spaces as well. Nothing captures this act better than memes. One could even make a case for memes as the defining visual art of the current age; the last possible attempt at an isocracy. Copying, sharing, and adding new meaning to a pre-existing image or ideas isn’t new. This is so dominant in our current world, even major films are (and always have) borrowed ideas, made sequels or remakes. Art and ideas from a mixture of cultures can be combined to create something new. Providing new perspectives and different interpretations. There are only two stories ever told: a character goes on an adventure, or a stranger comes to town. Painting is the same. There is no longer such a thing as “originality.” However, established themes and new artists’ perspectives continue to provide richness to art and life.
Along with the internet, relational aesthetics seemed to be showing a shift in attitude towards social change. Unlike modernism’s ideas of “forward progress”, these artists were reacting to now. They weren’t looking to make change with their art, but create communities or “microtopias” in the present. Looking at this movement now, almost thirty years later, the ideas of micro-communities mirror often problematic online echo chambers. Bourriard said, “it seems more pressing to invent possible relations with our neighbors in the present than to bet on happier tomorrows.” This holds true especially today in our current political climate. Almost everyone feels an overwhelming sense of dread. A desire to escape. A sense of powerlessness in bringing about positive change. Painting the everyday won't solve these problems. All art is political, but I actually believe that art doesn’t bring about change. Instead it reflects on problems and wishes of a society. I believe painting can explore how current issues often impact our lives in subtle ways.
Ever since people started farming, writing, and living in sedentary societies, art has had a political role. Rulers used visual arts to educate the illiterate masses on laws and religion. Pictures and sculptures meant to inspire fear and respect for the governing body. Within the last 300 years or so, painting changed from being purely for those in power, to critiquing them. This change mostly lines up with the rise of democratic governments during the middle and later years of the Enlightenment (1685-1815). During this time painting went from depicting Biblical scenes or Greek myths, to quiet condemnations of war. All of this history is inseparable from painting. There is a paradoxical, complex relationship between art, those in power, and those without, Not to mention, only considering a western, male, wealthy perspective versus other populations who historically haven’t had power or presence. Painting is a flawed, messy medium, very similar to the reality of human existence.
Plato’s argument against painting from his “Republic X” can actually be used in favor of painting. He argues that paintings are bad because they are illusions of things. Not actually real. A bed for example: only the physical bed and the idea of the bed are real and therefore good, and a painting of one is not. Plato was arguing here in favor of poets, and to him the idea was the purest form of an object. However, I believe the fact that paintings are illusions should be embraced by painters. Even when fully painting from life (like a still life in a studio), paintings cannot escape being constructed, orchestrated illusions.
Plus, there is a long history in painting of artists creating detailed illusions. Typically mimicking frames or relief sculptures. Or even trompe l'oeil still lives. In our current world, social media bots and photo filters alter what is “real” into the ideal and try to convince us it’s true. Even “news” outlets spread “fake truths” and misinformation. We are simultaneously hyper aware and ignorant of the deceptive images that constantly surround us. These days, a mosaic isn’t fooling the birds. We know paintings aren’t real. But through their distortion and carefully edited compositions, they can get at more truths than other media we consume. Paintings can be based on real life but don’t have to be hyperrealistic to reflect reality. Painterly styles, heavily orchestrated compositions, and fantastical elements can still provide a sense of truth about what it means to be alive because paintings are fake. Sci-fi books and movies for example, take some inspiration from life and combine it with fictional elements in order to explore a broader issue. Painting can do the same thing. Even just the (un)conscious emotion in mark making, color, and composition influences the emotions and perceptions of viewers. Plus, if a painting includes recognizable objects, it establishes empathy and relatability between the viewer and the painting, leading to a stronger impact. As long as the “world” depicted makes sense to itself. Even if that sense is nonsense. Afterall, real life is often more absurd than fiction.
Representational painting can often be described as an image. Great paintings are more than just an image. But in a world where we engage with art online more than in physical spaces, this is what they become. Paintings really should be seen in person, but I myself even look at more paintings online or in books than real life. This is due to where I live and the few positives of social media. I’m able to look at paintings I’d never be able to see because they are too far and it’s too expensive for me to travel to. I also can see work I wouldn’t have heard about. However, when I think of this way of engaging with paintings I’m always reminded of Walter Benjamin’s “Image in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935). Reproductions of work on instagram or tiktok doesn’t have the same impact as they do in person. What Benjamin calls “aura.” Basically the “vibe” or experience/tactility of art that can only be experienced in person.
The scale of painting is lost when viewed on phone screens. Scale is essential to viewer experience. We unconsciously relate things to ourselves. If something is bigger than us or smaller than us, we will feel a different way. Much of gallery and historical painting exists on quite a large scale. It’s hard to understand that, or feel the significance from it when viewing an image of a painting on a screen. How close or far we stand from a piece is also lost. The sense of intimacy or intimidation scale and a viewer's movement brings about is instead replaced by a cold, static, consumption. This loss of physical connection with most viewers only supports my argument for representative painting from life. If scale and texture is lost when viewing, an identifiable or relatable element will hopefully pause some from scrolling and engage with the art. Even if there is an absurd scene or something more common, having figures, objects, or symbols present in our everyday lives might make the viewer pause and think. In an ideal world, painting shouldn’t have to compete for our attention. Getting someone to look at a picture for more than three seconds is more than can be expected in these times.
The Pictures Generation Movement starting in the late 70s is one of the first movements in the post-modern world we are living in now. Its ideas are still relevant to today. If anything, their concerns over an image flooded world are only amplified with the presence of the internet, social media, and smartphones. At the time, not only was there a new surplus of images, there was constant scandal and war. Even counter-culture had become commodified. Guy Debord was right; everything, even ourselves have become commodity. Ideas at the times explored how identity is not innate, but learned and manufactured through social pressures and institutions whose social constructions bled over into mass media. That mass media then influences people’s individual and cultural identity. A lot of it had to do with how people were represented in pop culture, tv and movies. For these artists, their work took the form of appropriated images from advertising or film in an attempt to either create a sense of dread around social ills, or became hyperreal in order to mimic the commercial advertisements that flooded our lives.
In 2024, the amount of images and advertising has only increased exponentially. I can still recall commercials from my childhood, and I don’t think I go more than a few hours without looking at my phone (only cause I can’t look at work). I’m not the only one with a screen/social media habit/addiction either. Plus, as an artist concerned with creating an image based painting, I have to look at as many images as I can. Compared to the fast creation and consumption of photos or AI images on endlessly scrolling platforms, painting seems outdated. A relic of the past. Painting in these times is appealing because it rejects the fast, disingenuous, digital imagery. A painting typically takes a long time to make. Combined with the history of painting, the subject is often perceived as important. While everything we see in ads or online is edited or filtered in some way to sell us something, paintings based on life can instead say something about us with no “solution.” A painting is often another object to be sold, but it has enough history and distance from the digital world to be more than that. Maybe it’s cause I’m naive from my lack of financial success, but depicting everyday life is a path to noble painting. Presenting the common isn’t marketable. I believe great art explores deep themes and meanings. To do that it doesn’t need to worry about being marketable. With the exception of a few, the average artist already doesn’t make much from their work. Those artists are in the best position to comment on social ills. They have nothing to lose.
When I say painting from life, I really mean exploring common subjects and themes. It’s been some years since the hyper-realistic movement started, but these days painting photorealistically is akin to academic art of the past: emphasis on technical skill and usually praised by conservative groups. Artists who paint hyper-realistically are extremely technically skilled at copying pictures. Many artists (including myself) work from pictures. They’re better for time management. If we are surrounded with pictures, we should be able to use them. Photorealistic painting however, seems to also have become the mainstream art style promoted on social media. Specifically among less skilled artists, either at the beginning of their artistic journey or as an influencer who only creates paintings for attention and no deeper purpose. Online through the camera lens, a lot of mediocre photorealistic paintings look a lot better than in real life. The opposite is true for the incredibly skilled photorealistic painters as well. Moving painting away from photography, embracing the tactile materiality of paint like color and mark making, is essential when making work inspired by life. Much of a painting’s beauty comes from its surface. When the surface can be touched with our eyes, we not only spend more time looking, but it makes the subjects feel more imperfect, flawed, messy. Human and real. Like how life really is.
Over the past couple years there have been trends in the art world and market that support painting from life. Just over the past 10 years, many more figurative artists who paint realistically have gotten attention and praise for their work. There has been an increase in artists of color who create work from life as well. This lines up with many social justice movements in the last decade. Not only is there (a general) increased awareness of discrimination in all institutions, there has been a celebration of skilled painting. Artists like Sasha Gordon
or Amanda Ba are some of the youngest artists ever to be represented by a blue chip gallery. Both of them create skillfully realistically rendered figurative paintings inspired by personal experiences.
Another artist, Jordan Casteel, won the McArther Award a few years ago. Casteel worked for years, only recently getting recognition for her work depicting everyday people.
Figurative painting from life never went away during the early and mid 1950s. At the time, stepping away from that type of art was avant-garde, academic, or fashionable. These days, there is a heartless sense of consumerism with non-representational art. Ironically, abstract art went from anti-institutional to corporate approved. That’s why it often felt genuine when people of color or LGBTQ+ artists created representational work based on their own experiences. The celebration of human individuality was a welcome change. When painting representational work, especially when involving the figure, there is a sense of identity in the piece. For groups who have often been demonized or not represented at all, painting provides a place to be seen as one wants. Solidified in a medium with a legacy of depicting rulers, the wealthy, and the divine.
Art that demonstrates technical skill, explores deeper themes, and uses everyday life to do so has been increasingly popular in other art forms as well. It’s always been important in fiction writing, especially with the genre of literary fiction. Recently it’s found new relevance in hip-hop as well with the increased success of people like Kendrick Lamar. He uses lyricism, a storytelling way of rapping, with a tendency to explore the complexities and dualities of being alive while drawing from personal experience. His technical skills allowed him to triumph over Drake. Audiences started to look for other artists like him and reject the hollow, corporate products that exist only to make money. Even in comedy, the “edge-lord”, racist, unoriginal podcast dude bros, are losing favor for genuine/witty comics. Again, who use storytelling or their own, relatable lives to make jokes about and explore broader current issues.
I hope this trend of representational painting continues for some time. I believe by painting from life, all painters no matter their personal or cultural identity can get at some deeper truth about the world we live in. We are shaped by our surroundings and experiences. People can have very similar or extremely differing lives. Painting can use specifics to connect with viewers. The individual objects or figures may be different from what we’ve personally experienced. Humans are an imaginative species. We understand metaphors and what is familiar can be used to propose deeper themes about the self, family, spaces, and what it means to be alive. By seeing a figure in relation to the objects and space around them, viewers can start to consider how they relate to their surroundings in their own life.
Globally right now, governments are failing their people. Disconnect, hate and strife is stirred up by bots and a range of media outlets. Algorithms only show us stuff we like, and often promote hate. Paintings and art seem like one of the last places for the possibility of understanding. Art has always been a defining aspect of human culture. A place where we can explore and question the societies we live in and our individual experiences. Technologies, urbanization, media and politics can often lead to feelings of isolation. Art has always been a way of visually communicating with others. To provide information on survival, inspiration for faith, or direction on how to live our lives. The importance of painting in human history cannot be overlooked when considering contemporary painting. Our history of painting ourselves is inherent to the material. We need painting now more than ever. Painting from life, is painting for now.
Comments