What and how to paint today?

European fine arts had it's evolution, with it's roots in greek, roman and bizantic art. All artforms - painting, sculpture, architecture and music - mainly served the church. Slowly religion's influence weakened and humanism arose. Aristocrats and wealthy civilians became the artists' new customers, ordering portraits, still life or a landscape. Techniques and themes were evolving. The paintings always reflected the current period's ideas and style.

At the end of the 1800's that reached a dead end: the academic style. The lack of colors and the stiffness was the result of how a painting should look like, based on the norms which grew into a dogma.

A desire emerged to paint what we see, to trust only our eyes, and after the rise of realism (and symbolism), impressionism was born. It opened up Pandora's box, and was followed by pointillism, expressionism, secession, fauvism, cubism, constructivism, socreal, surrealism, dadaism, pop art and abstract.

The image and the purpose of an artist changed, from a craftsman/artisan, who's receiving orders from the church, royalty and nobles - to a person living outside of society, not questionable for his motives, style and actions.

That image change started with figures like Van Gogh and Gauguin, who left everything and put their life on art. That passion is still valued and celebrated today.

It continued with less authentic men like Picasso, who cooperated with the notion that he is the greatest artist ever, and with Dali, who built up this false image of the artist: posing as a bizarre weirdo to gain attention.

After WW2 abstract painting became the mandatory style of the "modern" age, but just like dissonant/atonal music it became a dead end. More than that, it lost it's connection with the audience: humanity itself. Till this day, these exhibitions happen without the knowledge of the general public, attended either by artists or art historians.

This obligatory "modernism" states that we cannot go back and repeat ourselves. This style is a boggy ground: art itself became either a gimmick, either a very subjective experience which others cannot understand. 

Art does not speak for itself anymore, a one-minute creation will be explained for an hour.

The knowledge and sincerity of the artist cannot be checked anymore.

It became essential to become well known by the critics and the art world, if that is achieved, then the artist can do anything, it will get the publicity, and he can sell his works for huge sums.

Buying art becomes money investment for the wealthy. It's lost it's original purpose altogether.

I heard the expression "post-modern" age. Even that I don't hear or read anymore.

Let's go back to the basics!

What is the difference between a drawing and a piece of art?

It's simple. If you want to copy an object and be faithful with all the details - that's a drawing, a study.

The moment your drawing has a message, and goes beyond recording, it becomes art.

I prefer to stick with universal human values, logic and common sense.

If you strip these artforms of their essence, you are killing them. Poems should have rhythm, writing - sense, music - melody, painting - understandable meaning or at least aesthetics.

Artists create to express thoughts and feelings, they have the urge to document and immortalize things. 

• Art should be sincere. 

• Art should reflect on the world, natural or society.

• Art should be something that others can connect and identify with. 

Example: the selfportraits of Rembrandt are great, because we see in them something universal and we can identify with it - self observance of changing and growing old.

On the other hand, the selfportraits of Frida Kahlo do not have an additional value or deepness.

Final conclusion:

Everybody is free to create what and how he/she wants to. One can choose to chase success, money and fame, become a svindler.

OR being an honest person, who thinks talent is a responsibility, which should be used to contribute.

Daniel Rubin

2025.06.17