PAINTING MAKES A COME BACK?
"In this issue - 'a successful' comeback of painting" - announces Andrzej Saj in his editorial in the latest publication of "Format" [no. 1 (51) 2007 - magazine came out on July 2007]. We don't ask, "if painting has the clout in art monopolised by miscellaneous techniques and media, boundaries between which fade out smoothly. Because we know it doesn't" - voice their opinion Patrycja Sikora and Piotr Stasiowski (Malarstwo – prąd zmienny / Painting – alternating current). "Regardless of whether the curators, critics and directors like it or not, painting is in its heyday again, has become big, trendy and appealing. Once more it causes the stir of audience and collectors' imagination as well as enchants with its endless possibilities", adds Krzysztof Stanisławski (Powrót malarstwa / The return of painting).
The issue of the condition of painting has been much debated recently – there was a number of good occasions to do it. Successive exhibitions, organized at the turn of 2006/2007 like: Nowi dawni mistrzowie (New Old Masters) – a display arranged by Donald Kuspit in Gdansk National Museum (followed by a release of his book Koniec sztuki / The End of Art), (Polish Painting of the 21 Century) in Zachęta, Warsaw, and eventually Nowe tendencje w malarstwie polskim (New tendencies in polish painting) in Municipal Gallery BWA in Bydgoszcz, generated a raise of fundamental questions. Discussions (especially concerning the exhibition in Gdańsk) were broken off in the means of mass communication, coming from the shadow of academic journals. Moreover disputes erupted in the broadsheet newspapers, what actually doesn't occur in Polish realities very often (see: discourse referring to Kuspit's book and exhibition in “Dziennik”).
Isn't saying about the triumph of painting an overstatement? Isn't it only a craving of some authors of “Format”? Hasn't it happened in such a way that several more or less esteemed exhibitions were presented at one time? After a while Artur Żmijewski with his book Trembling bodies and a „manifesto” published in „Krytyka Polityczna” (“Political Critique”), sparked off a more core discussion concerning the role of art, without narrowing down this issue only to the talk about the supremacy of one technique over another. The participants of the discussion „Czy Polacy potrzebują sztuki najnowszej?” (“Do Poles need the most recent art?”), that is running on now in „Tygodnik Powszechny”, bicker over sundry matters, however for the substance of painting (the list of participators include so far: Dorota Jarecka, Izabela Kowalczyk, Adam Mazur, Maria Poprzęcka and Agnieszka Sabor). Thus, the question about the shape of painting seems to be not of little importance, yet wrongly formulated. The controversy, especially over the proposition of Kuspit, has sunk into oblivion. That unfortunate exhibition could be the reason because even if the book entitled The End of Art was worth discussing, the display in the National Museum proved to be – repeating after Krzysztof Stanisławski – a discredit of all author's theses. Instead of Lucian Freud's canvas we were looking at a pale imitation of remote academism (except for one difference: more effective presentation of the genitals), rounded off with a creative activity of local painters from Gdańsk. What is worse, some cherished a dream that New Old Masters become a foundation for the new art, worth of the new, IV Republic. Do I exaggerate? In contrary to Andrzej Saj I have read the text added to the book of Kuspit and written by the then director of the National Cultural Centre, which so open-handedly supported the organization of the exhibition.
Nevertheless, I recommend reading of current “Format”, not only in purpose of recollecting of the not long past debates. The repeated interest in painting has been a fact but this process can be observed for several years, what the text by Krzysztof Stanisławski recalls about. Also in case of Poland one can say that this phenomenon has been occurring for some time, to mention only the inquisitiveness, which the activity of ‘Ładnie’ group, as well as Dominik Lejman and many other artists, has received. Today the name of Wihelm Sasnal is being declined ceaselessly by all possible cases. Where does an awaiting of a breakthrough appearing in some comments in “Format” originate from? It seems that for many supporters of Kuspit's book and exhibition the return of painting is meant to be the condemnation of the today's media and all “non-traditional” forms of expression. For these, permanently “yesterday's”, people a division into the “good” media (read: painting, sculpture, graphic design) and “bad” ones (photography, video, installations, performance) exists. They don't agree on half-completeness or the lack of criticism – these are the reasons their euphoria over Kuspit derives from. Perhaps I'm simplifying things but cannot one hear such voices in Poland? Meanwhile the reality of art is still altering and simple distinguishing features seem to appeal not to many people. Recent exhibitions of Darren Almond in Modern Art Centre and of Bill Viola in Zachęta were critically acclaimed even from the regular bellyachers, but for Barbara Majewska, who has drawled in the latest “Więź” (“Bond”): „Unfortunately, not Rembrandt does result from it”. (Żart, zgroza i blask / Joke, horror and shine, no. 7-8/2007)
As Grzegorz Dziamski remarks in a text devoted to the creative activity of Gerard Richter Malarstwo w czasach pluralizmu (Painting in times of pluralism): „Nowadays a painter can paint like Grzegorz Sztwiertnia and Leon Tarasewicz, like Ignacy Czwartos and Dominik Lejman, Jakub Adamek and Wojciech Leder, Jacek Dłużewski and Łukasz Huculak. Painters can paint whatever they want to. Does it mean that painting has lost its meaning [...]? No. If painters want to restore the signification to painting, they have to go beyond painting.” Many such attempts could be spotted in both already mentioned displays in Warsaw Zachęta and BWA in Bydgoszcz.
It is worth reaching for one more text from latest edition of “Format” in this quest for finding a place of painting. Tomasz Załuski writes in it about the crossing the medium's borders. (Jednostkowa wielość wideomalarstwa / Individual multiplicy of videopainting). The examples of Dominik Lejman's, Konrad Kuzyszyn's or Anna Orlikowska's works indicate a phenomenon of „spreading and obstinate staying of particular habits or a creative instruction, a defined logic of creative thinking, specific sensitivity as well as a way of perceiving the world or ultimately a set of detailed issues shaped on the ground of techniques of painting and sculpture as traditional areas or media of art on the territory of art of the 'new media'”. But painting and sculpture are also given the new greater possibilities.
What is the future of painting and art itself? It is worthwhile to call, after Stanisławski, Maria Poprzęcka's words. „What to do in order to hold the ideal? [...] Above all the ear shouldn't be given to the catastrophic wails. To look at art. It's quite well.”
Paweł Kompanicki
Translated by Monika Rześniowiecka
Discussed journals: Format