a copied copy of a copy of 'stephen' ,an original piece

On the computer, fellow blogger ben ( now that is funny, 'hello fellow blogger so and so...") gave me an idea, well actually it was his idea and I am stealing it. I do not think he will mind, but BEN, if you mind, I did give you credit for the idea and I totally do not have the same 'loves' as you, although they are right up there; so I guess what I am saying is, allow me to talk about painting, my painting and painting in general sort of, as my love, more importantly, abstract figuratism, now that I am doing it anyway...I am an artist of sorts, one that works with visual work, canvas and watercolor paper; pencil, charcoal, dyes, marker, water colors, acrylic, canola oil and/or gauche; abstract; figuratism; male figuratism; large scale: 6 ft by 7ft or smaller 24by36 or in between 4ft by 3ft, to evoke a response, a feeling from the viewer. I chose the male figure because it was uncommon and more uncommon for a male artist to paint the male figure. I did not choose abstract, it chose me by initially entertaining me with 'the masters' work (Deibenkorn, Picasso, Park, Pollock), but art history bored me; although, I loved to read about those artists that started the firgurative movement, more attentive to the figurative movement in the San Francisco Bay area during the 50's and 60's. I did not invest anything above average in time and memorization and study of theory, color or otherwise. I spent well above average on table books of my favorites and other work(s) that had 'it', but those have all been given away now.

And although art history itself bored me, I was fascinated by the critics and am even more 'drawn' to a piece, if I have that 'find' go off in my mind, that I know not why, but only if it IS good, really good feeling. And any critic, in my humble opinion that wants to take something that is so subjective and try to place value or rationale on it, put it into a category or school of thought and try to tell what the artist was expressing or simply lacking, I tip my hat off to. Personally, it is 'chatter', and nothing more than simple judgment at a given moment.

There is no black and white, only days worth(s) of shades of gray and I applaud you for doing something that causes persons to second guess their 'raw' talent, their 'raw' emotion, their ego or parts there of and even still, to create a self defeating prophecy.

For many of the masters who I have learned of, starved through life, where on the cutting edge of insanity or the brink of, but actually were ahead of their time, only to be shunned and discarded like smelly garbage during life and praised with brilliance in the afterlife as 'great'.

And this concept, repulsive to me in theory, continues today and the term 'starving artist' "tags" many creative minds as society still believes there is a black and white and thinks only inside the box, instead of outside the box, leaving many true artists bohemian, extremely raw and undiscovered for the most part. And art, like athletics, can only be learned to a point, at which time raw talent kick in, takes over and helps the mind create. Good is good.

And the rewards, which I have had, showings, monetary, accolades from collectors, still do not drive me any harder to completion. I make art when I feel art and otherwise the art is forced. I have art that has sold, been shown, won exhibits, won best in shows, been given out of thought, as a suggestion, out of anger, to pay off a debt or my own disregard and unwant of the piece for whatever be the reason, been stolen and been lost over the years and some I know where it is and other pieces I know nothing about, only that I did it and it is missing, but remains in tact in my mind.

I have more to create and intend to, or as I have so UN-eloquently been told, 'your intentions are good, but your follow through is less than desirable'.