Untitled Landscape, Bellport (No.0001) 1985

Editor: This is Arthur Pinajian’s "Untitled Landscape, Bellport (No. 0001)," created in 1985 using acrylic paint. The thick impasto layers give the canvas such a tangible, almost sculptural quality. It feels vibrant, almost frenetic to me, but I struggle to see much that reminds me of a landscape. What do you see in this piece? Curator: The lack of conventional recognition *is* the point, I think. We need to consider how art institutions at the time grappled with representation and abstraction, and how that played into the perception of landscapes in particular. The mid-80s witnessed a questioning of established artistic hierarchies, so an abstract landscape challenged the conventional expectations around the genre. Does it *need* to represent trees and grass to evoke a sense of place? Editor: So, you are saying that challenging those visual conventions was part of a broader movement within the art world? Curator: Exactly. Pinajian, seemingly isolated during his lifetime, ironically taps into larger post-impressionist explorations, such as fauvism, through that vivid palette and impulsive brushstrokes. His rejection of realistic portrayal becomes a statement itself. Is this Bellport, as in Long Island? Or somewhere else entirely, filtered through the artist's internal vision? How might the public role of painting landscapes been challenged by a painting like this at the time? Editor: I suppose it disrupts expectations by prompting the viewer to actively participate in constructing the scene, rather than passively receiving it. Curator: Precisely! The artwork challenges viewers' ingrained expectations of the landscape genre. It emphasizes the political and societal influence of art in a more ambiguous yet effective way, particularly during the Post-Impressionist transition into modern art! Editor: This makes me see the piece not just as a landscape, but as a cultural statement! Curator: And considering its re-emergence into the public eye much later in Pinajian's career, it invites consideration about art historical canons themselves. Food for thought.