Pluto wrote:Wanting to portray a certain energy in the work, like what is going on in the image of horses, is something perhaps I wanted to achieve in a portrait I made about the death of a journalist. I didn't want to do a straight portrait as that wouldn't include the violence done to him. I wanted to include in the portrait his violent death. See what you think, have I used my talents and skill in making it. Yes why not, yet they are skills and talents of another order perhaps. I wrestled with the image until I got it to look the way I wanted it to, this is the same thing as the horse painting artist was doing.
the death of michael hastings.jpg
That which can be created in 20 seconds can be discarded is 2 seconds: the amount of time it takes to screw it up and throw in in the trash.
The painter of "Scotland Forever" was a genius.
Your image of Michael Hastings has no energy beyond that which it would produce if you were to set fire to it. And the act of burning it would be a more profoundly artistic act than the (ahem) effort you took to make it.
And the act of burning it would be a more profoundly artistic act than the (ahem) effort you took to make it
That's a bad cough you got there.
How long did it take you to make it? About 25 years he said, I started painting 25 years ago.
What have you learned in that time?
Art has become instant, like fast food. I think there is something to be said for talking time and care.
Obviously you do not.
It's finished. There really is not much to it, I know. What would colour do I ask myself, have I seen mars, no. Mars is a model in the mind. The images we have of it are okay, but no point in me copying them as a painting. My painting is a painting of the photograph taken on board the robot that was/is on mars. I don't want it to be a painting of the planet and its landscape but of the photograph taken. It is a cartoon copy of the photograph. The four shapes in the corners are the 'hands and feet' of the robot.
Pluto wrote:The concept of masterpiece is baloney and elitist
That is exactly the sort of bollocks that a lazy artist would peddle.
A masterpiece is a work created by a person who has dedicated his life to the mastery of his art.
You just ain't prepared to put in the time.
The artwork as masterpiece where the artist has put in time is a mirror commodity of the capitalist system in which the artist resides. Art is more than the system in which it finds itself and so plays other games which do not fall into the systems trap of subsumption. Hard work shows itself in many different forms. A work which houses the values of the system in which it is made is not art. If! That system is corrupted and unethical.
The concept of masterpiece is a bourgeois notion of class differentiation
