In this week’s Artist Spotlight, I will be covering the Australian Precisionist and contemporary realist landscape painter Jeffrey Smart, one of Australia’s most celebrated artists for his unique perspective on the industrial landscapes of the modern age. Although I have previously covered contemporary artists, precisionism is an artistic genre which I have not previously explored nor heard of. Precisionism is unusual in that it promotes a lack of perspective. Rather than adhering to the landscape style applied in more traditional artistic genres such as the Romantic and Impressionist movements which utilize panoramic perspectives, Precisionism is characterized by a sharper focus. While the angles in Precisionist paintings typically convey far less objects in a scene than a traditional landscape, they contain a lot more depth. This is also a result of the lack of saturation in the painting; more emphasis is placed on shadows and the objects are portrayed in a monotone color scheme. The objects feel like they have more volume because they are sharper and more defined.
Like most artists, Smart has remained relatively secretive about the underlying message of his paintings. However, there are certain ideas which we can certainly derive from his vast collection of paintings. The curiosity of Smart’s work is that Precisionism’s primary focus is conflicted between two differing ideals, one which argues that technology would enhance the human experience, while the other posits that technology would dehumanize society. When observing Smart’s work, it is fully unclear if he is arguing in favor of either of these positions. Take for example his piece “Motor Dump – Pisa II”, in which the leaning tower of Pisa is surrounded by a never ending sea of automobiles. The leaning tower of Pisa, in itself, is a defunct object. This makes it difficult to derive Smart’s position; Is he ultimately suggesting that the clutter caused by modern technology will render traditional values obsolete (i.e. the leaning tower of Pisa is an Italian national treasure) or is he suggesting that it doesn’t matter anyway because both objects are imperfect. My ultimate contention is that Smart is suggesting that regardless of the circumstances, the development of the modern world will far outpace the evolution of humanity itself.
An excellent example of my conclusion is illustrated in Smart’s “Container at Pisa Airport”, a landscape piece produced in a much more traditional style. The scene is expansive and maintains the depth and darkness of any Precisionist painting. Although the painting contains far less scenery elements, it better conveys what I believe to be Smart’s conviction. The five cargo containers, neatly stacked in the empty airfield, tower over the human subjects. Similarly to many of Smart’s works, the land is completely devoid of any other human life. The subjects are there for scale, rather than for realism. They stand in the dark shadow of the storage containers; an anomaly in the remnants of industry. Yet another artistic conundrum for the reader to consider…
