[Tom Edgerton]

I've been following this controversy for a long time without weighing in, but I've got to side with Jim on this thread.

As a working painter, I realize that a lot of the decisions I make and the final result of my effort are driven by instinct, feel, guts (or lack of them) and a lot of other non-verbal, non-cerebral action. I'm working on whatever artistic issues interest me at the time. Most times that includes correct, academic copying of the shapes I see (draftsmanship). But sometimes not.

To dismiss the effort of an artist as being completely a product of devious, overt calculation aimed toward creating the most controversy and garnering the most attention is to miss the point--that art is primarily a dialogue with oneself, in private. Presuming that Freud painted the Queen that way because he didn't like her, or for some other ominous reason, assumes I have special insight his psyche. I've learned (the hard way) when I make that assumption, I'm almost always wrong.

And to Jim's insistence, criticizing an artist for not being interested in the same things I am, stylistically and formally, is artistic political correctness to the extreme. Criticizing a non-traditionalist for not being Bouguereau is the same crime--in reverse--that was perpetuated against traditional realists through most of the 20th Century by the "modern" art world. If it wasn't okay for them, it's not okay for us. Freud doesn't paint the way I do because he doesn't care to. And isn't that all right?

She didn't pay him, and agreed to the project, so what's the harm? Lord knows, she's got the time. And whether she's happy with the result or not is her decision--I don't have a dog in that fight.

If I can learn something about painting by looking at it, why not look? It's a lot more sensible than pretending that if I view anything but what reminds me of me, my eyes will dissolve in their sockets and my soul will be irreparably damaged.

Like the song says "different strokes for different folks."

Best--TE