I'm wondering, after 30 years of painting, and I already know the answer, but humor me here..... is it really necessary to have a "look"? You know what I mean, that standardized, stylized, "look" that everyone knows is yours. I just got the new Getty calendar and on the cover is a detail of a painting, a reproduction. I looked at it and mumbled "Gerhard Richter" to myself... opened it up and of course it was a painting by Gerhard Richter. Now how did I know that from a detail on the cover? Because it has his look. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Well if I have to have a look, I'm in serious trouble. I'm too busy exploring things, ruminating on nonsense and finding out what color it is. My current obsession? Squares, circles and triangles. Hey, I'm a simple girl.
| | | |
|
|
I would love to see some of your work but I don't see a gallery with your blog
to see my work go to www.BlackburnFineArt.com
It concerns me when galleries, juries etc say they want to see consistency of style and subject. ??!? Sounds limiting to me, especially the 'subject' part. I don't believe that is an appropriate measure for whether to let art through the door.
When you have seen these terms used, what did they mean? For what purpose were they being applied?