|
It's true this type of thing is partly done for fun. In some ways I'm guilty of doing what Tom Wolfe rightly mocked thirty years ago in "The Painted Word", art that requires an explanation in order to make any sense of it.
If it was the only redeeming quality of the painting that would be one thing. I figure as long as it doesn't compromise the more important aspects of the work; if you can pull it off in a natural way it's "all good".
I mentioned this pattern to the audience at the unveiling in the Capitol five years ago. Since then I've pretty much kept it to myself.
Obviously I looked at this element of the painting as a "bonus". I think it is a healthy habit artistically to try to think innovatively on every level.
One reason I bring it up now is that I found it ironic that the W.P. critic selected my painting to illustrate his distaste for official painted portraits. He feels there is no more room for innovation in traditional oil painting. I think he is wrong and also he chose a bad example to pick on if I do say so myself. Of course since he never bothered to call me, he didn't know what he didn't know.
It was so nice of the clouds and everything to align themselves so I could just "slavishly copy them". NOT.
|