June 15, 2009

No matter how bizarre "new" styles of expression tend to be, we--everyday viewers and buyers of art--seem to revert back to representational styles. When the Impressionists, and then the Abstract Expressionists came along, photographic realism took a hit that would forever change the prevailing notion of what a painting was. But predictions that Modern Art would no longer include realism have simply not borne out.

Why is this so? While there are innumerable artists in New York lofts turning out "new" forms, paintings bought by the rank and file are 1) beautiful landscapes, 2) portraits of kids and pets, and 3) still lifes. As an artist working with color, shape, and composition, I've wondered about this; and, whether or not our friends are just ignorant or stuck in a past century, it seems to be that their comfort level is settled in realistic presentation of recognizable objects.

Now we're down to what we expect to see when we look into a painting--what we think a painting should look like. I believe we search for some part of ourselves: what we are familiar with, what we love or have loved in the past, where we yearn to go. A painting pulls us in, and there we make meaning.

While the fashion runways in Paris are crowded with outlandishly strange and pricey garments, we still pull cotton shirts over our heads and drag up our levis on most days for meeting the world. Personally, I'm always on the alert for a better pair of levis as well as something trendy for special occasions. Accepting the one doesn't exclude the other. I can love a beautiful landscape, portrait, or still life, too.