Where is Wyeth's 'Christin's World?' perhaps, the best American pretention
of an artist work demanding explanation.
Impressionist work is open to interpretation-that is as it should be.
Picasso and Pollock carried it too far, especially Pollock, drifting over to
something called Abstract Art; opening the door to a guy that stacked
cans in a grocery store, named Warhol.
There is a place for Abstract Art, but it is also carried to the extreme,
where interpretation shrinks to questioning phrases, without meaning.
Then there are the folks laboring their impression of the great American West attraction?
Fredrick Remington was an accomplished artist and sculptor.
Charles Russell (don't think it was spelled with two ll's) was a real cowboy.
Does that make his art more authentic-You answer, I do not know.
(Yes, I know there is a post of Russell)
Art must include poetry, it must!
The brush and canvass satisfy a need to exhibit something of value within
the artist. (Remembering it was subject to the whim of the patron in the
17th and 18th centuries. El Greco managed to paint portraits
demanding explanation- 'The Burial of Count of Orgaz,' is just one of his examples demanding the viewer grab pen and paper to define and
applauded, words are not enough.
Poetry is painting, pictures in your mind-it would be difficult to determine
which is best-the paintings- which triggers words of explanation; or printed words which have the same function
Remembering, this is my opinion-You must mold your own.