Contemporaries

Tell me if this makes sense (article for AP project):

And who is Jan van Eyck's modern equivalent? It would be easy to answer that based on the number of times a painter's name appears on Google. To whittle down the search, it is better to ask: who is Jan van Eyck's local contemporary? Local, meaning in this country. And in this country, it has been drilled time and again that Luna, Amorsolo and Francisco, are the greatest Filipino painters in history. In those terms, it certainly would be easy to put them on par with van Eyck; I myself would dearly love the idea of our own art titans standing beside Renaissance gods. But it would be unfair to compare them on the strength of their names; if it's style that we're talking about, I could simply pick out Nemiranda, Dante Castillo, Carlo Magno (among others), artists that seem to follow the style called Realism. (Or maybe "realism" from the way I understand it; afterall, I’m only peering into a vast tunnel called The Art World And The Science of It All.) Or if we need to compare on the basis of perspective, William Gacad used just that in his painting, The Church of Sta. Rita, Pampanga: the lines seen on the pavement in front of the church gradually seem to converge, but not totally so, which means that the subject is far away, but not really.

Looking at the paragraph I've written so far, this comparison seems like a gigantic task to accomplish, that is, assuming that it is possible to make the correct assessment about such finicky matters; one cannot really decide by just relying on the look of one painting per artist while flipping through an art book. I think being compared to another artist would be a compliment for some, and a source of chagrin for others. It is a double-edged sword. In an "industry" that demands the breaking of clichés and stereotypes, it seems like artists run in the direction which allows them to stand out, be unique and defy convention. It’s the only way to survive, as the pupils of Francisco know, whose styles resonate deeply with that of their maestro's; Jose Blanco eventually broke away from the shadow of his master, and is now hugely successful today.

Art is dynamic, and will continue to move in other directions: cubism, impressionist art, neo-realism, etc... "When we see artists discarding old ways as fast as they can and blazing new trails, then we can say that all is well," says a book. But, as Manuel Duldulao writes, "Variation of themes and mediums, or combinations of these will recur again and again, if we take Eugene Delacroix’s word for it, when he said, 'Genius lies not in having new ideas, but being possessed by the idea that what has already been said is not yet enough.'"

Jan van Eyck is a genius because of this. And the Filipino painter who shows an understanding of this idea, though not van Eyck’s contemporary (we can't see that far ahead), can at least lay claim on sharing a common tie with him (which says a lot in its own right). Answering the question posed at the start is highly subjective. Having briefly skimmed the surface of this topic, I now leave the rest of the thinking to you.

Sources:

Duldulao, M.P. (2005). The Art Collector’s Guidebook. Dagupan City, Philippines: University of Pangasinan.

Duldulao, M.P. (2000). Twentieth-Century Filipino Artists (Volume III). Legacy Publishers.

---
http://sc2lliving.blogspot.com/

Blog ni Michelle Mendoza. Remind me to link her.