SURVEY: GLOSSY OR SATIN

Even before I became a full-time oil painter in Asheville's River Arts District, I was developing a unique way to create a painting using dimension, both in the build-up of the composition and in the finish (which has mostly been using a thick, high-gloss, solar-resistant resin). In fact at this point, I think I'm probably known for that "shiny" resin finish. I like it a lot. It allows me to embed flecks of gold that are essentially "floating" above the surface of the actual painting.

That said, my largest commissions over the last couple of years have been with a satin varnish finish, which leaves all the texture visible (and touchable) and is not nearly as reflective as the high gloss resin. And I'm really liking the results of that finish as well.

Lately, I have more and more people asking about the satin finish and so I'm thinking I need to listen.

And so I'm asking for your brutally honest opinion:

Would you suggest I continue to produce paintings with a high gloss resin finish or would you honestly prefer a softer finish that leaves more of the texture showing and is much less reflective? You won't hurt my feelings either way and on the contrary, you'll really help me decide what direction I need to go now.  (SEE PHOTOS BELOW FOR EXAMPLES OF BOTH)

HIGH GLOSS FINISH USING RESIN

SATIN FINISH USING SYNTHETIC (NON-YELLOWING) VARNISH

So, what do you think? One or the other, some of both? Mostly one, some of the other? I'm really open to listening. If you could leave your opinion below (so they're all consolidated in one place), that would really be appreciated! Thank you!

Where it Began

"Autumn Reflections", April 2012

When I was a kid, I used love to look through my grandparent's old photo album. In it, were scary photos of dead ancestors -- dressed very smart, unsmiling, staring into the camera. Something about the thought that "I am related to these people -- this is where I came from" kept drawing me back to that old book of ancient photos.

I thought of that memory just the other day, as I looked back at the first first photos I posted on my (then brand new) Facebook page. Wow. I cringed and laughed out loud. I found myself staring at the very first painting I had shared back in 2012, "Autumn Reflections". This was one of the very early "landscape" pieces I had done using my new technique I called "Dialuminism" ("Light Passing Through"). See, when I started working with painting atop aluminum leaf and finishing with resin, I was doing all abstracts. Separately, I was painting small quasi-impressionistic landscape scenes, but I really wanted to figure out how to paint landscapes using the tools of dialuminism but I had no idea how to coax the materials and ingredients to create what I wanted to create. The painting I'm showing here was my first attempt at a landscape. I had so much fun with it (and these new reflective landscapes were SELLING!), that I quit doing my more typical oil painted landscapes and jumped head long into my technique, using dialuminism for every piece I did. It became my trademark.

I enjoy seeing where I come from. I was all about ancestors long before ancestor.com. I like seeing progression. It's fun. And I thought it would be entertaining to share that progression with other people. I hope you're enjoying the ride as much as I am!

"Until Tomorrow", July 2018

"The Time Between Times"

"Time Between Times" (22" x 34")

Sometimes when I am trying to get ready to begin a painting, it's difficult to know what I want to paint. I hear other artists say things like "I'm just waiting for inspiration...I'm in a dry season right now." That's not me. I've never been in a dry season. I've never waited for inspiration. If I dive into something (whether or not I feel inspired at the moment), inspiration comes quickly. It's like that inspiring little muse is always there (albeit quiet sometimes) but it can always be coaxed out. Sometimes it's like a pouting little kid that doesn't want to play and is sulking in the corner. And so you say "okay that's fine! I'll play without you" and before long, the kid slinks out of the corner and joins the play. 

So I am not slowed down when I don't feel "inspired". What I'm talking about is when I'm between projects and want to paint...am ready to paint...NEED to paint but I don't know what I SHOULD paint. How to decide...

What I usually do at that point is to look through all my photos in my camera and go to Bing or Google images and start the search for something to inspire my painting. I always tweak the photo so it's not a "copy" (I need the painting to be a unique piece), but I feel free to get inspired by a sunset, sunrise, interesting foreground or general composition of a piece. But the really big thing I'm looking for in a photo is not whether or not it's beautiful. There are lots of beautiful photos that make lousy paintings. I'm looking to create an emotion in the viewer. Manipulative, huh? It's true. 

The above painting is one I just finished this morning, "Time Between Times", and it depicts that five minutes of time between day and night that the world becomes magical with the quality of light and color. I'm looking to create a piece that evokes a sense of awe. I can imagine being there in the scene and thinking "Oh...my...gosh. (long pause) That..is...amazing". If I were standing on the shoreline of this lake at that time of day, I would feel awe. My goal is that I can share that sense of awe with the viewer of my painting. 

So to me, it's not my primary goal to create nice art. That's part of my goal, but utmost in my mind is that I want to elicit emotion (usually a sense of awe or peace or joy, but sometimes sadness and pain). If I can do that, then I've touched on something powerful and that is a very heady thing to try to master. I'll always strive to that end. 

World View #8: Post Modernism

"The Fountain" by Marcel Duchamp

I'm an oil painter in Asheville, North Carolina and I love living here. It's a unique little city. Asheville is an odd little cultural "melting pot". It attracts bohemians, artists, hippies, and hikers. To a great extent, we're a cool version of "the Island of Misfit Toys". Asheville is a southern American town with a handful of "locals" who were born here, and the rest of the population are transplants from all over the country. The vibe of the town, the beauty of the surroundings, the art, music (and craft beer) scene -- this is what draws people here (it's not the job opportunities!).  This makes Asheville a really interesting place to live, because you live your life amongst people who all have different views on things political, social and spiritual but (for the most part) respect the right of their neighbors to hold their own views. In fact, the only thing people here seem not to tolerate is intolerance. That sentiment leads us right into our next (and last) world view: Post Modernism.

To be accurate, a post-modernist would say that post modernism is NOT in fact a world view, but an “anti-world view". They would say that no single narrative is able to make sense of all our little cultural stories. In other words, "worldviews" are now out of fashion (which in itself is a world view).

Per this world view, there is absolutely no absolute truth.

Because our world views create the sense of how we interpret life here on this planet, how we make sense of everything we experience, a post modernist would assert we all create our own reality, and that it's pointless to try to convince anyone else that your particular "take" on things is the correct "take" on things. Post modernism would insist that there is no authoritative "take" on anything.  

Per this world view, there is absolutely no absolute truth. Yes, I wrote that sentence that way intentionally, because it points out to me the weakness of this world view. To say there is no absolute truth is in itself an absolute truth claim, so when I say "there is NO absolute truth", I'm contradicting the very assertion I'm making.  But because of the abuses of power by all who have held the previous world views discussed (see earlier blog posts), post modernists  distrust of all authority and dogmatism.  And if you listen to people speaking around you (from the news on TV to social media), you'll notice that the phrase "I believe this is right or true" has been replaced by "I feel this is right or true". I.e. post modernism appeals to our "gut" rather than reason and logic based on an accepted set of principles we regard as absolute truth.

Because of this, tolerance, freedom of expression, inclusion, and refusal to claim to have all the answers are the only universal values. And honestly, that sounds really good but...but it's a world view of contradictions.

Consider the following conversation between two friends:

Sam:  "I don't think you should do it. It's not right.

Tom:  "I think I should have the right to do whatever I want to do."

Sam:  "I just don't think it's right."

Tom:  "You're just pushing your morality on me. It's YOUR morality. Not mine. You're just judging me. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?"

Sam:  "Wait, so you think judging people is wrong?"

Tom:  "Of course judging people is wrong. Everyone knows that."

Sam:  "So you think I'm doing something wrong when I'm judging people?"

Tom:  "Yes, of course you're wrong when you judge people."

Sam:  "But you're judging me. I think I should have the right to do whatever I want to do. What if I want to judge? Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?"

Logic like that is really hard to debate. So I personally find post modernism really frustrating and most difficult to scrutinize, but it is an absolute truth (pun intended) that this world view has very deeply affected twenty first century culture.

And so, we've reached the end of our very over-simplified discussion of world views. Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Modernism, New-Age Pantheism and Post Modernism...these are the world views that have shaped the western civilization since time immemorial. And because of that fact, they have drastically affected the art produced by our culture.

So in light of all we've discussed, how do we use our knowledge of world views to understand art? I would suggest it boils down to asking two questions when we are exposed to artwork (painting, photography, ceramics, poetry, music):

1) What world view is it speaking from and to? The answer to that question has a whole lot to do with what is the artist is probably saying.

2) So in light of the answer to the first question...is there a message in the art and if so, what is it?

“BUT IS IT GOOD ART?”

I think that's a fair question to ask and a rather simple question to answer. Once we have at least some idea of what the artist is saying, I would consider one more point: What level of skill is involved in the execution of the art being considered?  I mean, do you look at the piece of art with any degree of wonder? (i.e. “Wow, how’d he or she do that?”)   

That’s it. You don’t have to be sophisticated to figure it out.  When my kids were little, we took them to a modern art museum. For the record, I wouldn't suggest this outing for most kids, but it was pretty hysterical. Everyone there looked like they were quietly viewing the artwork (one was a blob of red paint in the middle of an 8' square white canvas) with wrapped fascination. To me, it was so interesting just to watch the people. It really felt like a modern retelling of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes and I felt like the little kid that was laughing at the emperor because he was in fact naked (though everyone was acting like they saw such astute wisdom in the king's choice of royal finery). Everyone else in the museum was acting like they saw such wisdom and depth in the artwork on display. Into that scene, my kids come racing around the corner and shout (so embarrassing), "Mom! Dad! You gotta see the stuff in this room over here! It's even weirder than the stuff in this room!" There were gasps from the museum crowd. Truth hurts.

What level of skill is involved in the execution of the art being considered?

There's a true story about an art auction in New York some years ago. There was an abstract painting auctioned off for millions of dollars. It was prized for its frenetic energy and non-traditional use of color. It was later found out that it was painted by a gorilla. The interesting thing is that everyone was completely insulted to find this out and the buyers demanded their money back. This is fascinating. Was it good art or not? Everyone thought it was great before they found out it was painted by an ape. Again -- think "Emperor's New Clothes".

Look, bottom line is: If it’s good art, you can probably tell.

Since I'm obviously giving my opinion at this point in my blog series, let me go one step farther:

I don't believe that everything called art is art. There. I said it.

• Just because it’s shocking doesn’t make it art. It may well be a visual expression. But unless there is skill involved, it is not art.
• Just because it is clearly conveying a message doesn’t mean it’s art if it is not skillfully pulled off.
• Just because no one else has thought of doing it doesn’t mean it’s art.

For what it's worth, I think good art says something TO the viewer (which is why we need to interpret the art in lieu of the artist's world view) or that art does something IN the viewer...and is skillfully done.

That’s it.

National Geographic?!?

My day began like any other day: I woke up, showered, had my coffee and walked the three miles to my art studio/gallery in Asheville, North Carolina's River Arts District. Little did I know this day could change my life...possibly forever*.

Back story: As a kid, I grew up totally addicted to any National Geographic television specials. These productions would take me away from my life of drudgery (as a second grader) and to far off, exotic places like Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania or the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Peru. I would be immersed into the fascinating (and usually tragic) life of the wildebeest, gazelle or the giant sea iguana and forget I still had to practice for my spelling test in the morning. It was bliss.

"Little did I know this day could change my life ... possibly forever"

So back to yesterday at my art studio...I began working on my next series of oil paintings (which consist of a totally new and ultra cool form of abstract art, and I'm totally excited about that but...I digress). Around 1:00 PM, a nice young woman came into my studio and asked me if I would mind being filmed for a new National Geographic special called "Asheville Rising". Mind? Are you kidding?! You're asking if I want to be IN a National Geographic television special? (Do I get to go to Tanzania? Do I need an agent? Can I wear cool TV star sunglasses now? But I digress again.)

Obviously, I said yes. My gosh, the crew was super nice and I really enjoyed having them all in my studio. Basically, the segment was of just me painting (no wildebeests or gazelles). I have no idea if they'll really use any of the footage, but still -- National Geographic?! The show is supposed to air in October I think, but I'll keep you posted. Any NatGeo special about Asheville is bound to be great whether or not I make my TV debut. Whatever.

*Just kidding about changing my life forever. But then again....who knows?

World View #6: Modernism

In our basic survey of world views and how they influence the arts and culture, we have looked at five: Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism and Existentialism (that's a lot of isms to consider!). We have considered the basic "life premises" promoted by these world views and their affect on culture and specifically upon art. We noted that the basic assumption of theism is that "God is here". This world view asserts that the Creator is present and wants relationship with us. Deism asserts that God is "out there somewhere" (but not here). He, she or it exists (order we see in the universe would suggest that) but that God is distant and a personal "relationship" with him/her/it is not possible. Naturalism states that to debate whether or not God exists is pointless, because the only way to determine the truth of something is to be able to prove it scientifically (hypothesize, predict, test, repeat). Nihilism argues that if the propositions of naturalism are true, then the whole notion of God is dead, and that as a result, human existence is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Existentialism states that "well, yes God is dead, but we don't need him/her/it  to determine truth or real meaning...we do that ourselves.

Understand that at about this time, a lot of "culture shapers" in western society were to the point of saying (and I paraphrase): “Ah, all you philosophers are taking this 'meaning  and truth' thing all too seriously. You're totally depressing us!  At this point in history, we no longer NEED your religion or philosophy to explain or advance life and culture...we have technology…we can do SO MUCH to help the species progress, and isn't that what it's all about?"

Enter Modernism.

Modernism is the world view which preaches that human beings have the power to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge and  technology. It encourages us to re-examine every aspect of life, and use science and technology to find better ways of doing everything.

Modernism basically sets aside the theology and philosophy that lead us to this point. Or rather, it actually coops theology and philosophy to strengthen itself as "the" legit world view. Let me explain.

Rather than glorify a deity that is here, there or nowhere at all, modernism glorifies technology as the key to our thriving as a species. In a sense, technology becomes the new god. In the early 1900's, there was a phrase that summed up the thought of the time: "Every day in every way, we keep getting better and better!"  This was real cultural optimism brought about by a new and fresh faith in technology. Finally, humans were finally on the brink of utopia (in 1900, they didn't know about the two world wars on the horizon).

The idea of solving human problems with design and technology was very long-lived and even exists today.  But the optimism preached by the proponents of modernism was based on technology alone, not on human emotional satisfaction or fullness. Traces of human emotions were being stripped from art and design at breakneck speed. Consider the profound effect on architecture. Prior to modernism, buildings were ornamented. Details and hand-crafted elements were important. With modernism though, ornamentation was distained as unnecessary. Everything was stripped down to the bare essentials. That is all we need. Anything else was viewed as superfluous. “Less is more” was the mantra that guided architecture from the early 1900's until the 1980's (look at Soviet era housing for a grand example of this…)  

But...consider this. The art produced by modernism was becoming less and less "human". Architecture and design was looking more fit for robots rather than humans. Metal and glass, absence of vibrant color or intricate design is cold and mechanistic, with no "personality".  Human beings are fleshly and emotional -- warm, soft and full of feelings, (not cold and metallic and impersonal).  So, this leaves human beings with some cool looking art and architecture, but also leaves society with having to live in a very cold, mechanistic world with no personal identity.

Until the 1960's changed all that, but that's for the next blog.

World View #5: Existentialism

As an artist who usually just paints local landscape paintings, I don't usually think about my "world view". Most people don't give their own world view any thought at all but that view affects how we interpret EVERYTHING here on this planet. So, because we want (I assume) to understand art, we really need to consider the world view of the artist so that we can accurately interpret (and maybe even enjoy!) a piece of artwork. 

The previous world view we looked at was the "abyss" of Nihilism. Because the ramifications of this view are so dark, it gave way to the next: Existentialism. 

I think Existentialism is interesting. In some sense, it is a "softening" of Nihilism. Again, Nihilism asserts that we are all here by chance and in a few billion years when the sun explodes there will be no trace we ever existed and so nothing anyone does ultimately matters at all. In Nihilism, concepts like "fair and unfair", "good and evil", "right and wrong", "meaningful and meaningless" are not based in reality at all and therefore are technically baseless philosophical constructs.  The results of a strict nihilistic world view left a lot of people pretty depressed because like it or not, most people intuitively desire some sort of transcendent meaning in life. Human beings like to at least feel like some things really do matter, and nihilism gives no basis for that assertion.

Enter Existentialism

Existentialism showing up on the scene when it did brings to mind an analogy. Imagine the world is at God's funeral -- people everywhere are quiet, weeping, downcast. As the pipe organ is finishing up the dirge, Stephen Colbert steps up to the podium and starts cracking jokes. Soon, everyone is laughing hysterically.

Existentialism is the joke-teller at a funeral.

Existentialism asserts that yes (as per nihilism) there’s no God but…good news! We don’t NEED a God! We’re free! We can do whatever we want! We can be who and what we want.

Existentialism asserts that we’re not accountable or dependant on a grumpy deity out there somewhere. Individuals are free to create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them.

In existentialism, like it’s predecesor Nihilism, there is no true truth. There is no right right or wrong wrong. But existentialism deals with our penchant to at least “feel” like there are propositions that are true and false, right and wrong. This world view deals with that “desire for truth” by asserting that a belief can "become" true to you when you act on it.  This allows people to basically come up with “boutique truths”, customizable truth for every person on earth.

Let's look at the effects of existentialism on art. The poet, Tom Greening, wrote a poem which I think beautifully captures the ramifications of existentialism on a human life:

No Time to Feel (Tom Greening)

The way that I've arranged my life,
I've left no time to feel.
This anesthetic works so well
I never do reveal
my feelings even to myself
or to those close to me.
By keeping busy all the time
I act like I am free,
and if I have some time to spare
I fill it up real fast,
and pray this numbing sedative
is somehow going to last.
When nosey people question me
I hasten to explain
this is my plan to get through life
by minimizing pain,
and yet at times I lie awake
obsessed by sudden doubt—
I worry that I'm just a fool
and somehow missing out.
I do not hope to really live
but merely to survive,
but will I mourn when I'm near death
not having been alive?

So I have a question.  What’s your reaction to this poem?

Next, I’d like also to take a look at a sculpture named “Three Men Walking” by Alberto Giacometti (below)

Take a look at it. What do you notice? Any thoughts?

World View #2: Deism

In this blog series, I'm looking back through history and tracing the effects of societal world views upon art.  By way of reminder, a "world view" is a fancy term (use it this week and impress your friends!) that simply refers to the "comprehensive conception of the world and how this world works", i.e. our basic assumptions about life. I think this is interesting and helpful because understanding the mind of an artist greatly helps us interpret (and maybe even enjoy) his or her artwork, and that is the point of this blog.

So in my last blog, I talked about theism, the dominant world view in Western Civilization until about the 17th century. Around that period of time, the mindset of the average European peasant was fixed in theism and the mindset of the average European academic was fixed in skepticism.  This was the time of the Enlightenment, when the West examined theistic explanations for why things are the way they are, collectively scratching societal heads wondering "WHY do we believe all this stuff?"  So you really had two basic camps: the religiously devout and the skeptics, and in between both of them stood the deists.

The basic assumptions about life according to a deist can be summed up this way:

Deism derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience (rather than from a written scripture or religious institution).

Deism reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles). According to a deist, God exists but does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the natural laws of the universe.

Deism accepts holy books of religion as interpretations made by other humans, rather than as authoritative sources.

Deism purports that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason.

Deism teaches that there is right and wrong, good and evil based upon the laws set up by the Creator because by those laws, society runs best.

Where theism teaches that the chief end of man is to "glorify God and enjoy him forever", deism would postulate that that would be utterly impossible, because God is viewed as basically unknowable and distant. A deist would assume that God created the world but that he/she or it is aloof – somewhere out there beyond the stars but too busy and/or to grand to notice us much here on earth.  A famous illustration of what deism teaches pictures God as a watch maker who created this grand time piece and set it ticking. Then God left his work desk and left the watch to tick by itself.  And so a deist would believe that human beings still have the dignity of being created in the image of God but this God offers no personal relationship to men. So whereas theism teaches "God is here" (present), deism teaches that God is "out there somewhere" (unknowable).

How did all this affect artistic expression? Most notably, visual art was no longer centered on religious themes, but on natural situations in everyday life. Humankind was now at the center of attention rather than the Deity. To illustrate this, compare two examples. The first is of the Madonna and Child by Giotto di Bondone.

What is the focus of this piece of art? It very obviously was painted to exalt the deity. Compare this piece to "The Concert" by Judith Leyster, ca. 1633.

What is the focus of this piece? Obviously, people...human interaction with each other. Is God there? Oh, maybe off somewhere, but definitely not included in this moment from "normal" everyday life.

This shift in world view rocked all human expression. I have noted an example of this regarding visual art, but as far as music goes, one the most famous pieces ever written actually illustrates this world view shift with remarkable clarity. Beethoven's masterpiece, the "Ode to Joy" from the final movement of his Symphony #9 has to be one of the most beloved pieces of music in all Western history and perfectly illustrates the influence of deism. See if you can catch it.

"Ode to Joy" by Ludwig van Beethoven

Joy, thou source of light immortal,

Daughter of Elysium!

Touched with fire, to the portal,

To your radiant shrine, we come.

Your sweet magic frees all others,

Held in custom's rigid rings.

All men on earth become brothers,

In the haven of your wings.

Whoever succeeds in the great attempt

To be a friend of a friend,

Whoever has won a lovely woman,

Let him add his jubilation!

All creatures drink joy

At the breasts of nature;

All the good, all the evil

Follow her roses' trail.

Kisses gave she us, and wine,

A friend, proven unto death;

Be embraced, you millions!

This kiss for the whole world!

Brothers, beyond the star-canopy

Must a loving Father dwell.

Do you bow down, you millions?

Do you sense the Creator, world?

Seek Him beyond the star-canopy!

Beyond the stars must He dwell.

Do you see the shift? Whereas the piece by Bach I referenced in my last blog (Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring) had the deity as the center of attention, Beethoven has humankind at the center. Is God there? Oh, yes...somewhere "beyond the star-canopy...beyond the stars he must dwell".

So bottom line, a theist would say "God is here" and a deist would say "God is out there somewhere, but certainly not here". Theism holds out relationship with God as prime, and deism takes a big step back from that.

In my next blog, we'll progress to the next world view that hit the stage, that of "Naturalism". And by "Naturalism", please do not think of organic food and care for the earth. It's not that nice at all. But I'll save that for next time.

The Organ Mountains

"The Organ Mountains" (45" x 49")

This painting epitomizes my very favorite thing about painting a commission: I literally get to paint scenes from all over the world! This just completed piece "The Organ Mountains" is depicting a mountain range just east of Las Cruces, New Mexico. They were named the "organ" mountains because the jagged peaks reminded early settlers of a pipe organ (so the story goes). 

Planning for this painting began last December when a very nice local couple were visiting my art studio in Asheville's River Arts District. They liked my technique and asked if I ever did commission work. I love that question. I explained that "YES!" I do commissions and that they comprise over half of all I paint at this point. So they pulled out their iPhone and showed me photos of these incredible desert mountains and I was totally hooked. After agreeing to the size, they sent me several photos they liked, which I kind of combined together, i.e. I took the composition of the mountain range in one of the photos and sketched my composition based on that photo. But it was dark and the coloring was off, so I used the lighting and coloring of a second painting and vegetation from a third photo. After I completed the sketch, texturized it and applied the metallic leaf, I colorized it with multiple layers of oil paint and called in my clients to take a look. They asked if I could insert a massive cumulus cloud above the mountains, and insert an ocotillo plant and some yucca's (all cacti indigenous to that region). A week later, I completed the painting, applied the gold to the edges  and poured the resin. 

I love the American South West. I've spent a lot of time exploring the area but it's so, SO vast, there's no way anyone could see it all in a lifetime. If you like very wide open spaces and dramatic geology, the west is definitely worth a visit (and definitely worth commissioning a painting I might add). 

"Remember...there are no mistakes with art"

I hear some crazy things sometimes. It just cracks me up what some people say. Just by way of reminder, I work in an open art studio in the River Arts District of Asheville, North Carolina. An "open" art studio means that people can visit from all over the country and all over the world (literally!) and drop in and visit with me and take a look at my artwork displayed on my walls as well as watch me paint.

My work desk/easel is about four feet from the door and so I'm right there. I can hear everything. :)  Here are some snippets of conversations I've heard recently that just made me crack up:

• "Babe, you could TOTALLY do this art! Ask him how he does it!"
• "Yeah, it's nice and all but did you see the PRICES!?"
• a guy to his girlfriend..."First he takes a photo and dips it in the glass..." (really??)

and my recent favorite..."Remember sweetheart, there are NO mistakes in art..."

That last comment is the one comment that makes me cringe actually. What that kind of mindset infers is that there is no such thing as skillfully crafted artwork and poorly done, ugly artwork. Believe me, I've made ugly artwork and I can guarantee there ARE mistakes in art because I've made a whole lot of them. Pay attention here...(I'm about to say something profound)...the freedom to MAKE mistakes with art is what also creates the freedom to innovate. Some of the crazy things I try actually work. Some unequivocally do not, but some do and that is how technique and skill advance.

I can guarantee there ARE mistakes in art because I've made a whole lot of them.

To say there are no mistakes in art is ridiculous. I mean, is art the ONLY thing human beings do that has no standard? I've heard good music and bad music. I've heard good voices and really bad voices. I've read well written books and really poorly written books. I've tasted really good food and really dreadful food. So is the creation of a painting or drawing in a completely unique category that makes it immune from scrutiny? Of course not. There is beautiful, well-crafted art and really bad art. I know this because I've made both.

"...the freedom to MAKE mistakes with art is what also creates the freedom to innovate."

I guess the other reason I don't like that comment is that it reveals some insecurity on my part, and I'm willing to own that. See, if it were true (that there are no mistakes with art) then I'm wasting my time trying to push the limits of what I think I can do with my own art; I'm wasting effort trying to get better and more skillful as an artist if there is no such thing as "better" or "skill" as it relates to art. But I really believe the creation of great art (any art -- painting, ceramics, sculpture, music, food just to name a few) involves developing skill. And skill at learning anything at all involves experimentation and playing with your ingredients and experimentation inevitably involves some failures. That's the human condition and art, if nothing else, is absolutely and completely human.