Thinking About Art Is Optional...and Perhaps Obsolete

In a nut shell Patrick, we are lazy! every day they come up with a gadget to make life "easier" or some thing "faster", just look at the produce section of the grocery store, people are willing to pay double the amount of money just not to have to chop up an onion,carrot or celery. We have T.V dinners, yuck! Disposable dishes and table ware. Why would someone want to figure out our art if they can have it explained to them?

I'm not sure that this is anything new. Didn't the advent of photography way back in the time of the dinosaurs change the way we all looked at art?
One only has to watch the lines of viewers passing by the masters in museums and checking off boxes as accomplishments. But I think this is something that had been that way time immemorial. Not every person in the 'good ol' days' cared much about art. In the good ol' days people were much more concerned about day to day survival then they were about art.
In fact, I would say there are more people appreciating art today than any time in history.
There will always be people who want to say they have seen art, and there will always be people who experience art.

Our culture is just fine. It's just a little bit different than what it used to be.

-YoPedro

That's it, Mario. We are witnessing the slow, inexorable regression to a mindless state of being that requires little in the way of thinking, and even less in the way of responsible participation in this thing we call a life.

If they do anything, technological and scientific advances intended to make our lives easier and more manageable should free up the extra time we need to get 'cerebral' with works of art; instead, we're being dumbed down to the lowest common, cultural denominator because something else is doing our work for us...including 'thinking.'

First thing to go in the school is fine arts. If kids never experience the act of creating art, they grow up with little understanding of how its created. Look how many people are on these forums asking "is it good enough", "tell me if my portfolio will sell" etc. As if they can't even tell if their own work is art or not.

YoPedro - that was my experience at the Louvre in Paris. Bus loads of people following the signs to the couple of "great hits".

Our public schools destroy the will to create that is an intrinsic aspect in the life of every human being; since we started modeling our education systems after the initial paradigms of mass production we invented at the outset of the industrial revolution, we've been destroying creativity in kids ever since.

More often than not they are taught to memorize rather than think. Any chance of creativity is tested out of the system.

Once I had the chance to observe a teacher being scolded for exposing students to an advanced topic by another teacher. "you can't teach them that, that happens next year" was the thought process.

Of course its not always the schools, I had a intern this summer in my robotics camps who was going to be a senior this year. I sent him over to the post office to mail a package for me. The kid had NEVER been in a post office in his life. Didn't know what to do!

I don't know if this is off topic or not but a while ago at a dinner thing someone mentioned my artist site and I was asked to pull it up on the computer. I did and sort of watched people look at my work...this was not a group of artists just a bunch of friends. To see how they viewed my stuff ... Some actually looked at my work and made comments and seemed to appreciate it...others clicked on the comment avatars and totally got lost in the process...one guy clicked on all of the good looking chick avatars....some found work they obviously liked better...and someone asked me why I didn't have any pictures of whatever the heck it was.

I can't really answer your question but Mario has a very good point...that and perhaps it truly is that art is in the eye of the beholder. I wonder if given the choice between The Mona Lisa and a Vintage Indian Motorcycle what the statistics of the choices would be.

The funny thing about it Patrick is that we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that it's progress.When in reality it's not always better but all it does is fills our need for instant gratification just long enough to move on to the next thing. I made a home made pasta this past Sunday (the actual pasta from flour and eggs) not the dry past you boil I know you know what I'm talking about Patrick, all from scratch, when we were sitting around the table we were all looking at each other realizing how much better it tasted than the regular pasta. This is just one example of how just because some thing is pre-packaged or pre-cooked or ready to go Does'nt make it better. Modern Living to some degree is what is contributing to this Existential Void which is what your Op is questioning I Think. Viktor Frankel described this very thing in his book Man's search for meaning.

The internet sites that offer a quick open and close click approach to art viewing extended exposure of the visual arts to bounds never before experienced. This instant image-processing for viewing, however, has cheapened the product. One is less in need to visit the art work in a brick and mortar establishment and perhaps even less interested in purchasing the original, since immediate access is at their disposal merely by opening a computer screen. Francis Bacon once wrote, "art should never be too accessible." I'm afraid, friends, that I no longer need to find and open my Francis Bacon books--a simple flick of the computer navigates me right to his site.

People do not think for themselves any longer, they rely on computers and television to do that for them! I used to enjoy when I would drop off a painting at one of the galleries standing in the shadows and listening to peoples reactions to certain works. Even if they were negative, I thought it could be beneficial for my personal growth. Now? They look at the price and that is the only thing that they question! We rely too much on modern technology of which I am guilty as well. I recall a day not so long ago when I remembered mega amounts of phone numbers. Now, I have to look in my cell phone for everyone but my mothers!!!
We are told what to wear, what to think, what to say and what to believe in and God help you if you are a square peg.

first - your art must be appealing and catch the passerby eye - it's got to impel him/her to take a second or a long look. So much 'art' is blasé or perhaps just turns folks away.

Schools take trips to "Disney" rather than to anything really cultural - art or music - and those are the first two 'subjects' to get axed when money is tight. the local high school with about 1200 students has a band of perhaps 40 students - and 10 of those are probably flag wavers rather than instrument players. As well, most folks that aren't 'reared' in art, music - what we call the cultural arts - are only looking for decoration - gotta put something on the wall that matches the drapes and sofa.

"I wonder if given the choice between The Mona Lisa and a Vintage Indian Motorcycle what the statistics of the choices would be." all depends on your audience - and then you might find yourself surprised. I took my turn sitting a co-op gallery - and a group of bikers came in - and two plunked down money on a couple of paintings - they'd be back - hold them. I don't remember ever selling another painting while I was sitting the gallery - made most of their money on art-classes.

@Kenneth - yep - and some young folks are totally astonished when they see 'real' art in person. (some older folks as well)

I don't buy into the argument that schools destroy the will to create. There are more artists today than any other time in history. If there is no good art being produced by those who attended an artless education, then how do you explain the explosion of artists today producing brilliant work? How much brilliant music is being created from kids who never learned it in school because they learned it on a computer?

Every day there are hundreds of new accounts being created on POD's from young people who consider themselves artists. A lot of them are producing wonderful works of art in every medium possible. I would never want to discourage a young artist and tell them that because they didn't get to model clay in the third grade they have no valid medium and that their art lacks soul or context.

-YoPedro

Thanks YoPedro, I teach art full time in a public school district in sacramento. We have an art program taught by full time art teachers from k-12th grade. The effects of "No child left behind" educational approach is being replaced by the more creative Common Core which emphasizes thought. Way to early to tell if such reforms will help but hope so!

Unlike performing arts where viewing time in controlled, such as dance or a symphony that may take up to hour or more… or a film two hours and a play which could take three or four hours… unlike paintings and sculpture where the viewer decides how much time they are going to give the work, which i think most of us would agree is a rather paltry amount of time...

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York did a study and discovered that the average time spent viewing an artwork is 17 seconds. The Louvre museum says that, da Vinci’s Mona Lisa receives an average viewing time of a mere 15 seconds. So when i get someone to view/look at a work that i have deliberately incorperated the “Where’s Waldo” school of image making, to spend 30 seconds or more i feel very successful… LOL

Ed your comment for some reason made me think of going to a store to buy something and when faced with all the choices on the shelf I simply walk away buying nothing. Maybe the quantity of the art that exist is what waters down the time people spend viewing it? although that would not explain the museum viewing examples you gave.

Mario, you have a valid point about the quantity issue, in museums visitors want to take in everything in one visit...

This video by art critic Robert Hughes seems appropriate to this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JANhr4n4bac

I agree people don't experience art they experience money.
-- mary ellen anderson

@Roy, I didn't mean to imply that I thought bikers would choose the bike...I actually think that might not be their first choice. I just wonder these things. I would not want to live with her myself ...as beautiful as she is...she depresses me...so dark and mysterious and that maybe smile that could turn to tears.

@ Yo Pedro I agree.

@ Patrick I totally see what you say and yet wonder has society really lost their ability to appreciate art? I don't really think it is obsolete

I have watched the local school children here where art appreciation is heavily stressed. They are encouraged to create and experience it. They have had wonderful art teachers and a great combination of mentors in the arts...including theater, ballet and music, they go to the museums and symphonies and I see that they enjoy these things...that it is understood...then they want what is current. They dye their hair shocking colors and pierce their parts and make a statement...we have nail art and hair art and tattoo art. They look at the old masters as just that old...antique. They decorate their rooms with all sorts of "art" objects but most do not use what us older folk consider "real" art and so we say it is lost. They even seem to have a greater desire to collect what pleases the eye then past generations....but what they love as art is not the thing we consider real art and so we say it is lost. I think mankind will always sit awestruck by a blazing sunset or gigantic full moon and to me that says no...it is not obsolete.



@ Mary Ellen...great video!!!

I haven't read the responses, patrick, but m response would be that we are products of an instant world....we can travel thousands of miles in hours, we eat fast food out and instant food at home.....we use credit cards for instant gratification...no more saving up for something we ned or want...the faster we go, the less to absorb, experience and enjo.
how sad.

We have let our human race let artificial intelligence rule our activities to the point where many have lost the ability for independent thinking

I fear that a population losing touch with reality will be easily controlled and directed

So as in art -----instant gratification is the trend, and artistic interpretation may soon need an app-----very, very unfortunately

that is not my experience, when someone takes in my work it hits them in the gut or heart which intern inspires them to talk about how they feel, good painting should whisper to you from the shadows, too much working with your head will reflect onto the viewer making them think they must use their head to experience it..

Yo, Yo. Wussup wid dat pseudonym, Yo? Pedro...but I like your real name, Peter.

The premise of this discussion thread hinges on observations that I made regarding the manner in which people experience anyone's art; namely, how relatively little time a person invests in viewing an artist's original artwork...not repro art, and how difficult it is for these same people to actually participate in, or connect to the artwork they're experiencing.

And therein lies a significant distinction that you, as an artist, should be able to discern: As the viewer stands or sits in front of the artist's creation, they should be able to see the record left behind by all those subtle traces of movement the artist used in the creation of the art; they should be able to appreciate the unified effect created by the artist using materials and tools best suited to the task; and most significant of all, they should be able to experience the manner in which viewing the art changed the way they think and feel about themselves.

Naturally, my own unscientific obversations do not qualify as empirical data as they are merely anecdotal, but that doesn't mean I didn't witness these things. Shorter attention spans are, generaly speaking, the norm these days, and as such, this trending phenomenon works against the artist; we need people to engage in the experience of viewing our creations in order that we move them to think and feel differently about their place in the world in ways they haven't before. That is what art does. It is what we endeavor to do as artists. To say that this trend is "...nothing new" or that it's passe is somewhat cowardly in that such a response fails to confront the possibility that even the works of Rembrandt or Monet can't penetrate the distracted psyche of the aimlessly wandering browser.

Art is technology, everything man made is art. The diversity of appreciation itself is the catalyst of artistic/technological evolution. People appreciate on diverse levels. Diversity is the key factor in evolution.
From the point of practical appreciation we set a direction for new innovation. We can also appreciate what is no longer available, some would say we truly appreciate the things we no longer have, more so than that which is readily available, right before our eyes.Appreciating what we do and do not have both fuel the desire for more, better, faster , cheaper-any tool that we can shape and that will in kind shape our existence. The distracted psyche is necessary as it functions in randomizing and conglomerating technological systems . One may see a blanket as a means of comfort from cold winds, another may see that blanket catching a breeze and we get a sail. Remember there are far more technological systems than one individual can appreciate in a single lifetime. The works of Rembrandt and Monet are diverse and can be appreciated at different and often contradictory levels within many or in one individual. The only time art/technology works against people,(artists are people), is when it does not allow the evolution of life. Another and foremost important factor of appreciation balances on the rate we produce objects and the speed/time in which those objects remain useful or innovative, thus we arrive at shorter attention spans derived from the increasingly high rate of technological obsolescence.

A most interesting and thought provoking thread, Mr. Pierson.

To all: Sentiment here seems to be generally consistent--that the internet and modern technology have made "things" more easily accessible, to be sure, but this convenience seems to mechanize the society to a point of being further removed from the real thing. I intimated earlier that the internet has made threads like this one, broadcasting of my artwork, and exposure of other artists and other venues of life possible like never before, reaching vast audiences, perhaps a not so different convenience that radio and television delivered decades earlier. All of this restricts touch, tangible application, and group debate, leaves to private involvement. Book sales may be down. CD's are not collected, as my generation collected records. Digital imagery, sound, and website communication have replaced the physical feel of creativity. All of this makes the genuine fine artist even more special today, does it not? We are not anachronistic, but becoming unique.

most art won't make sense unless you know the background to begin with. as far as oranges i like those that come in a small box they peel in seconds. and that's the same for other people, we don't want to have to understand it. it should be able to tell the story without the story. and if the artist thinks it makes sense and the buyer doesn't, then the artist has been staring at it for too long. i don't get much art myself. stuff you see in churches have no story for me because i have no story to apply it too. and that really goes for other images as well. art museums usually needs a guy to point out the little things in an image and what it means (whether it means something or not i don't know).

then of course there are people who will get what they get. some people will "get" dali, others not so much.

i also think it's very important that the artist shares with us their vision and adds a description to each image. but this isn't a real gallery and people don't have the time to ponder.


---Mike Savad

Without question, Mike. Nobody ever cares to put in the real time to studythe depth of a piece. The initial view must evoke something that drives the viewer for a return visit, to probe even further. Those artists whose work I grew to admire struck me at once, a fast spark lit my interest. But it wasn't unitl I further delved into the body of their work, looking and reading in depth over the course of time, did the work become my personal "classics." Not even the greatest fan stares for great lengths of time; better to return over an over again to refresh. Part of the reason popular music consists of songs that are generally 3 to 4 minutes in length is to keep the ball rolling so that the listener is not stifled. The radio is best suited for a "quick diet," and lengthy songs are usuallly only played once the artist is an established star--then we may care to listing to a long composition. We live with fast impulses, quick responses, short turn-around-times. The minutes piled up through repeated returns--that's what bullds the legacy.

Maybe I'm a little shallow, but all I want to see is a pretty picture!

Kenneth wrote: "Digital imagery, sound, and website communication have replaced the physical feel of creativity," and I agree: The virtual has supplanted the actual, which is a tired old saw, indeed.

Mike. In the context of this discussion regarding a viewer's ability or willingness to connect with the experience of appreciating and being moved by art, the onus is on the viewer, rather than the artist. The viewer completes the process initiated by the artist.

I say the process comes to a grinding halt when the viewer fails to do his or her part, making what we do as artists somewhat meaningless on a grand scale.

This failure to communicate is not the fault of the artwork, nor should the artist be blamed; it's symptomatic of the imminent breakdown of our culture.

We artists are like caged canaries in the coal mine.

Indeed, Kenneth. Top 40 radio hits are the equivalent of a quick, junk food fix; when's the last time you heard anyone mention losing themselves while listening to Mahler's Symphony No. 3 in D Minor?

We need to relearn how to slow down and live in the present, rather than always accelerating as we focus on a point in time that only exists several moments into the future.

there are lots of artists in history that are trapped in the void because the viewer "doesn't get it". but its still up to the artist to make it understandable. and it may only make sense to the artist and you have to live with that.

---Mike Savad

It's the artists' job? nah....that supposes all viewers have the ability to perceive.....we , as artists, know better.

Patrick it's going to take some thing of monumental proportion to have things slow us down now, it's like a runaway train. Maybe it's gonna take some power grid black outs! Last week we had one in the neighborhood due to a small thunder storm, it lasted like 2 hours is was from 9 to 11 pm, we were all forced to sit around with no gadgets and found ways to entertain ourselves under light of candles looking for the humor in the predicament we were in. The only other thing we can do is maybe find more creative ways to capture the attention of the viewers for our Art rather than just leaving it to them. I once took my sawed tree stump to my local flea market along with my torches and set up my sculpture display, I started pounding some copper, and alternated lighting the torch and hammering and in a matter of minutes I had captivated a small audience, one man said he heard the distinct hammering of repousse clear across the far side of the flea market and he had to investigate. The same maybe can be achieved with plien air painters, or with an artist at a pottery wheel or the guy blowing glass.

thinking someone else will understand the art is only an illusion set up by the artist. to their eyes its so clear what its about. but reality suggests otherwise.

---Mike Savad

I think that the ultimate responsibility belongs to the artist, now it also becomes easier or harder to do ( to make the viewer get it) depending on the art type, if it's abstract well then good luck!
If it's representational art you have a much greater chance of someone getting it.If it's conceptual art Forget about it!

Marlene. I said, "...the onus is on the viewer, rather than the artist," so I'm uncertain as to what you meant when you said it's the artist's job.

To be quite certain, though, the remedy for what ails our culture - thus deeply affecting ALL artists - is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.

We must work diligently to reform the public school system in this country.

Ronald Walker believes that the implementation of the Common Core State Standards is more creative than it's predecessor, 'No Child Left Behind,' in that it emphasizes thought.

Nothing he said he believes could be farther from the truth: BOTH programs are unmitigated disasters that dehumanize the process of learning and destroy a child's desire to be creative, to solve problems creatively, to think of themselves as artists as they create the story of their lives.

We must eliminate this horrible Common Core method of teaching from every aspect of education; that is our job.

"The time it takes to look at a picture properly is roughly the time it takes to peel and eat an orange, so why do many people barely give it a passing glance before demanding that you explain it to them, if they even do that?"

If given the opportunity to explain a piece of my work, I would make sure the explanation would take as long as peeling and eating an orange.

for me i like to shorten the time and liken it to peeling a banana.


---Mike Savad

Unless we're close to the viewer as they stand before our creations, we artists seldom have the luxury of explaining anything to them; while at shows, either in galleries or on the street, I spent a great deal of my time just teaching people how to look at art.

I also tell them that one of the first skills they need to acquire BEFORE they start drawing, painting and sculpting is to learn how to 'see' the world, to really apprehend that which they are seeing.

You all know this - or at least should - but people that have no experience from which to draw - no pun - are clueless as to how we do what we do.

You all know this, and therein lies the rub.

As Ed's post suggest that the Mona Lisa gets 15 seconds, I am happy if at a glance at one of my sculptures I can elicit a smile, a frown or a split second provoked thought, much less time than required to peel a banana.

I'm afraid my point is lost on most of you.

The work I do is by its very nature, programatic; it always has a premise or theme running through it, bound to it, because its more akin to illustration than conceptual art.

Here's an example of what I mean by programatic:



Embedded in the painting itself are these words:
"If the willow could weep, it would choose to cradle the sleeping infant in its Golden Boughs;

If the Man in the Moon could laugh, he’d tumble and roll ‘round this Ship of Fools and boldly dream of leaping cows;

If the wall could wail, it would dream of scolding those credulous souls who’ve sacrificed their intellect on the altars of Faith;

If Planet Zootopia could speak, she’d tell me from whence we came and where we’re going, then dream once more the nightmare of the human wraith;

But we are the stuff stars dream of as they sing the music of the spheres and dance the Danse Macabre."

The collector that acquired this original is a nationally known neurosurgeon; I did not need to explain a darned thing to him.

PS: I put everything into this mixed media piece...including the kitchen sink! (Missed that one, did you?)

Patrick;"I also tell them that one of the first skills they need to acquire BEFORE they start drawing, painting and sculpting is to learn how to 'see' the world, to really apprehend that which they are seeing."

My ten year old granddaughter loves to draw, she carries with her at all times her sketch pad and is now beginning to understand, light shadow, contrast etc, and her art is developing beautifully. How I wish I had your teaching skills to convey to her the beginning point in art is, "to see" the world and then capture the vision in her work.

Patrick I was responding to Mike's comment immediately befre me.....I was disagreeing with him and agreeing with you.

Silly me..thanks, Marlene!



Sydne. How I wish I could once again see the world as a child sees it.

Life loves irony.

You and me both!

if your artistic vision isn't being perceived correctly, it's not the fault of the viewers, it's the artists. it's as simple as that. you can't call them out and say - well you not an artist you will never understand my visions and emotions. and it's silly to assume so. some might get it. but many will not. you can disagree all you want, but if your making art that only you understand, and everyone else is scratching their head, your either showing it to the wrong people, or your not getting your vision out in a way that makes sense to mortals.


---Mike Savad

Mike's comment, "thinking someone else will understand the art is only an illusion set up by the artist. to their eyes its so clear what its about. but reality suggests otherwise," is a simplistic but accurate statement of truth. That's why I don't chose to document too much thought-process in any single image I create and write about. Let the viewer raise his own ideas, questions, and meaning. Let the mystery simply float. One gallery owner wrote back to me many years ago, in response to one of my personal statements relative to my paintigs, "what is true for you may not be true to others...." So, I try to leave it alone.

Mike. There is no 'correct' way to perceive and grasp the meaning intrinsic to the work of an artist, nor is there only one way to do either, and that's my point.

I'm talking about people who seem to have erected a mental wall between their eyes and their brain, effectively shielding them from experiencing the art we want to share with them.

We've done our work, and it is good; now, it's up to the viewers to decide whether or not they want to see it. If they can't 'get it' instantaneously, most people just don't care to give it any of their own effort.

Patrick.. you will just have to deal with viewers that do not get metaphor.

I have had the pleasure of the company of visitors to my booth, i.e.; Miami's, Coconut Grove Art Show, who have spent the better part of the day looking at my artwork. These people get it and want more of the same. Some want to take a part of me home with them and are convinced they're doing just that by acquiring the stuff I made.

But more and more, I've noticed a trend emerging (as I described in detail, above), and I'm not content to simply accept it as part of the status quo of our deteriorating culture.

I'm mad as hell about it, and I'm not going to take it anymore; dumbing everyone down till they've reached a level equivalent to the lowest common cultural denominator is not a good thing for artists.

I have also alluded to this phenomenon in another of my discussion threads involving the paucity of one-sheet commissions for fine art illustration.

We must not let art whither and die on the vine, for it will surely be the death of us all as artists.

"It takes considerable time and effort to appreciate and enjoy the 'experience' of fine art, yet too many people want it wrapped up in a neat little package they can instantaneously absorb simply by inhaling it, all in one breath.

What the heck happened to our culture?"

Digital Cameras; Computer Generated Imagery; The Internet; Social Media; Jackson Pollock

|Art should make you feel and think at the same time. Shortcuts are fatal.

I have experieced both things. I have a home gallery and of course love to show visitors my work. I have had many find something they really like and stop and drink it in. They get inside the work(s) and offer up their interpretations (both right and wrong) and of course I enjoy that. I have also had people barely glance into the gallery, walk on through and head back to the bar. Which means I have over estimated my attraction and am much more fond of myself than my visitors are.

A few years back I displayed in a corporate art evemt twice. My favorite thing to do was get a drink and lounge by my work. People would wander by, stop and make comments to their companions. The hardest to take were those who merely cruised on by without even a glance in the direction of my art. One must wonder why were they even at an art exhibit?

I chalk all of this up to human nature. Not everyone cares. Sigh.

Right you are, Kevin.

Like you, I have experienced both, but I'd much rather overhear derogatory comments about my work - "Oh, God! Why would anyone hang that crap on their wall?" - than have people completely ignore the work; though they were negative comments, at least I was able to get some kind of a response out of them.

In the past, a majority of folks found the time and the means to immerse themselves in the experience; now, it seems the scales have tipped in a direction that reflects a certain indolence toward things that require introspective thought.

Not everyone cares, indeed...which is just shameful.

I don't embrace all things modern as better including art, I much prefer classic movies,classical music and classic art's. I think society is in a state of deterioration with it's music, movies and modern art. It's not that I'm against progress, I just question if it's really progress, if new is better, is faster better. Would you really want to be stuck in 3 hours of traffic or on horse back along a beautiful country road on horse back? give me the horse.

If it were only that simple, Mario.

I love the advances that science and modern technology give us, especially when breakthroughs allow for improvements in the way we live. But there are exceptions, such as this very nasty business of manufacturing GMOs - genetically modified organisms - that have subsequently introduced wayward proteins into the food chain, many of which have the potential to alter the chemistry in our brains if ingested.

Just because they can do it doesn't mean that scientists should do it.

The same goes for art, and I'll take it a step further: The Great Masters of Art were intimately familiar with the science behind the special effects they created when using specific materials and techniques in the production of their masterworks. Stand before an original Rembrandt and you'll see what I'm talking about. His portraits seem to be three-dimensional, almost as if they were some old world, holographic incarnation of today's latest technology. This is because the Master knew precisely how to use the medium of oil to imbue his paintings with the effect of three-dimensional depth - not perfect 3D, but just stand in front of one of his paintings and I swear, you will be amazed. The subject appears to you as if it were actually there.

The Great Masters of Art knew stuff that we have all but forgotten; this is what I'm talking about.

Let's not completely retreat back ot earlier times....I have stressed my position on the internet as a broadcast vehicle for all things, which cheapens tangible appreciation of art. But I also realize the benefits of the internet--I only wish I had internet search engines when I was in college--instead of micro fiche, card catalogues, and primitive "Xerox" machines. Then, I would be lost without classic Rock music. To no surprise, much of my contemporary art is,well, contemporary, a product of the age in which I live. I hold high the classic Renaissance masters, Rembrandt, etc., but frankly I am a part of the modern age: radio, records, TV, movies, store-bought canvas and frames, and already-prepared paints in tubes (no need to grind pigments), these are the benefits. A product of the 1960's I am; time will tell how our kids' generation will perceive their "yesterday."

Don't get me wrong I don't want to go back to the blood letting days, I to am a product of the 60's, and totally enjoyed the Beatles and The Rolling Stones, and I know it's not just a matter of hopping on a horse and living on the Ponderosa. I do question what progress really is and I do think that technology use needs to be tempered with old fashioned true and tried values and ethics and that we don't forget we are first human beings and not digital robots. I think if we as a society are able to maintain a healthy balance with modernism then their might be hope that the next generation will look at an art work of the past or present with wonder and intrigue and appreciation most of all.

Hello all,
Some years ago, at an arts and crafts event, I got a question from a viewer about my paintings: "What does it do?" I said, "It sits on a wall. It lasts for years, not a few weeks. You don't have to pick it up to dust it like a figurine." That made sense to the person.