I’ve been thinking about that ever since, primarily because I have made similar decisions in the past, more than once, and I know that it is wrong. Somewhere I read or heard that it is the artist’s task to transform even the most mundane or trite subject into fine art. That being the case, there is no such thing as a trite subject, only trite art.
This is not to imply judgment on such art: it would be more appropriate to label such art “less than the very best”. I suspect that every artist’s portfolio contains an abundance of such art, a testimony to unbridled efforts to achieve that level of “fine art”.
This same blogger posted a small, simple painting of a Christmas candy cane, elegant in its simplicity and color. I don’t know if it would be considered great art, but It is pure visual delight to behold. I think she is a wonderful artist and hope she continues to paint the trite and the not so trite. I have not identified this artist because I don't have her permission. Hopefully she will so others can enjoy her blog.
Here is an example of one of my “ less than the very best” paintings. I still think the idea is a good one, but technically I did not succeed.
Red Barn pastel 20x30"
1 comment:
Your "less than the very best" is pretty awesome though, Bill. The red barn is just stunning. Sometimes I think the less successful paintings take us to a whole new level and they always teach us something invaluable.
Post a Comment