Painting leaves pictures in the form of making marks, and the creation of marks often has various technical backgrounds, such as direct depiction, or indirect transformation by means of media, or utilisation of specific implements to generate marks randomly. However, no matter what the method of creation is, probably every artist who deals with visual painting is faced with this question: what is the primordial force that motivates human beings to paint? To put it simply, why do we paint? In fact, every individual has his or her personal preference of art, and such preference can decide why we like works of this or that kind. Back to the primary information transfer of human beings, as well as the need for expressing feelings, we find painting one of the most fundamental expression devices of mankind.
There are many expression devices of mankind, such as music, dance, literature, drama, and so forth. Since the dawn of man, people have been trying a variety of methods to communicate: audio ways, body language, colours and images. Based on that, languages come into being. For example, we produce sounds and use vocal language, and we have verbal language, acoustic language like music and body language like pictures. These aforementioned methods deliver information.
Painting at the earliest stage had the linguistic function of information delivery and recorded certain events. In fact, painting of that period is identical to epics of ancient cultures or historical literatures that we mention a lot nowadays. Painting at that time was a record kept with pictorial language and an expression written in alternative visual characters; it was a record or expression of images. Painting, mutually complementary to verbal recording and expressing, bore a strong narrative attribute that has later become and always been a chief feature in painting.
When looking at masterpieces in history, however, we notice the special existence in painting that touches us in an ineffable way. Works of art have a curious power that infects and impacts the audience with certain emotions, and such infection and impact are very often beyond description and barely illustrated by any concrete example. To explain how that emotional impact is generated and why it triggers excitement, there may be a great deal of scientific interpretations, but to many, the infection of art lives only in their own memories.
In human history, people used to passionately represent the objective nature of the external world, and that passion is still visible even in quite a few of today’s artists. If we open a botanical encyclopaedia, we cannot help marvelling at the number of plants that are known in the world. Taking a closer look at every single plant, the leaves, the buds, the seeds and the images represented in the encyclopaedia, people get amazed at the botanical beauty and the wonderment of natural forms and, furthermore, stand in awe of the Creator’s greatness. As we use a microscope to amplify a blade hundreds and thousands of times, numerous details can be seen in that picture: aesthetic things, patterns, colours, rhythms, shapes, textures, etc. Then we recall Kant who remarks that no work of art can transcend the reality of nature, and that in front of Mother Nature and natural wonders, all works of art seem pale. In his ideology, artists are suppliers of aesthetic experiences; the target of those aesthetic experiences is the master and the artists are servants. As Hegel puts it, servant may be able to manipulate and control masters, but servants are still servants. Given that, artists’ admiration for the nature is very meaningful.
However, painting is not only about representing grand natural scenes with admiration; it also conveys the invisible spiritual things, albeit pictures are sometimes merely the forms presented out there. Unlike photography, which takes in everything that light renders visible to our eyes on the negative films by means of the accurate perception of camera lens and representing the entire objective world, painting deals with what eyes cannot see. Actually there are a lot of things that we cannot see, but we can sense and depict them; painting is an art of this kind.
Images are a visual delivery, and it can be very sentimental. In fact, this sort of sentiment originates from a subtle visual reading. If we observe every object with patience, we will notice that every object is unique in the world; if we continue reading it with eyes, we will discover that it has its own spirit and story. Painting based on such observation is in nature provided with a strong visual narrative attribute.
As the narrative attribute develops in the history of painting, when the planar two-dimensional space is confronted with the authentic three-dimensional space and the time span that factually exits in the world, people tend to employ a fragmental method to narrate these objective things. It is a familiar method to use fragmented scenes in visual art, for example, a creating style similar to collage; by cutting and pasting, the artist mixes and matches different visual elements, and this method spares the process of painting. Fragmented scenes per se are highly narrative. Human eyes move along with elements in the scenes, and the longer eyes view the visual work, the more information its audience receive. Painting is a visual language of human beings, and language bears a narrative attribute by itself; however, this planar kind of visual narration differs considerably from literature and films.
The narrative attribute is the part of painting that is most likely receivable. For instance, when seeing a painting, a child may ask what is painted in this painting, and an adult will attempt to interpret the logic behind the painting according to his or her personal experiences. At this point, we can analyse the perspective of the painting and the linguistic connotation carried by the visual elements. The concept of “symbols” emerges, as the reading habit requires. The indicative “symbols” within in the picture resemble the street signs, providing audience with clues. These symbols become the narrative elements of the picture, and the more elements a picture has, the more narrative the picture becomes. The interrelation of elements has an influence on the narrative trend and nexus, namely the interrelation of elements decides the narrative theme of the picture. People see the picture, and meanwhile the picture is remade in each viewer’s heart. A realistic painting is easy to understand, as the object it depicts is covered by the experiences of the majority and the narration can be reflected to them. “Symbols” in graffiti works, by contrast, are usually experienced by the artists themselves and hence barely resonate with other people. Therefore, the more elements a picture contains, the more likely a complete story can be made and the work is understandable to the public. However, some emblematic “symbols” are restricted to the historical and cultural background of the viewer, e.g. “Monroe” and “Coca Cola”; some religious symbols are in similar situation, such as the Buddhist mudras of bodhisattvas that each carries an unambiguous meaning.
Written by Xiong Yu
June 2015 at Jiangan Campus, Sichuan University
