Saturday, December 10, 2005



Choose: Kati Astraeir versus Neil Gibson

Neil Gibson. The colors are amazing and something at the top looks like mitochondria.
Ummmm, the first ones got jugs?
Kati Astraeir's piece demonstrates technical perfection. The depth of his art and the organic forms evoke powerful visions. His limited colour palette unifies the piece and at the same time shows an ability to create a masterpiece from a seemingly confined theme. It is by far the more impressive image. (Can anyone tell I take art?)
Kati Astraeir's piece.. the suggestion of forms brings to mind an idea of a thoughts' limbo.
Kati Astraeir's piece, at first glace, symbolizes hell to me. It's very raw, and somewhat morbid. I pick Neil Gibson. The picture isn't as sharp, which I would prefer, but it has a dreamlike quality, I think that is appealing. I'm also attracted to more soothing colors.
Kati Astraeir for the appealing technical skill and subject matter which makes me think of fairy folk peering from a forest.

Sepia flattens.
Although at first glance Kati's piece looks like something from Dante's "Inferno", & neither one is my favorite kind of art, I'd pick Kati for subject & depth.
I can't choose. Neither are my kind of art. They do nothing for me.

I have Renoir's "La Loge" & "The Umbrellas" in my living room. All of my pictures are from older to medieval times.

A concept of dancing thoughts or a fetus on canvas just doesn't do it. I think "masterpiece" art left us some time ago, probably around the year 1920 when Renoir & Monet died.

I know peoples eyes roll back in their head at some of the newer art, but to me it's as though they are looking for something to be great & not finding it.

The only artist I consider to be great after about 1920 is Picasso.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

eXTReMe Tracker