PORTRAITURE

(continued2)

After my last employ I had ideas of turning to "fine art", to doing gallery-(or museum-)work, work held by many in higher esteem than commercial art (the last held indeed in contempt in the same circles). It was a mistake as I now see it. Commercial art can be accused of catering to the whims of clients, but the messages of "fine artists", who pride themselves in expressing their own attitudes, can to many be as or more objectionable. Almost all art in past centuries was commissioned by clientele, who had to be satisfied, and these demands impose ability and effort on artists. The trouble in my eyes is indeed that much of gallery-work is lacking in such attributes, including, interestingly, even aesthetic ones. Rather, the definition of art has been transformed into a radicalism, never mind any appeal associated with beauty.

This does not mean that many exhibiting artist, often modern ones, have not contributed to better understanding of what constitutes creative art. But in my experience gallery owners are abominably worse judges of quality than are art directors of ad agencies, who in general know what is appealing, and not what can be sold to wealthy clients interested in gaining prestige with their collections.

Nevertheless, having thought about doing work of my own choosing, I at one point in my later thirties took opportunities for drawing or painting further portraits of people. The newly known felt pen, made in different colors, was a challenge, because the colors cannot be premixed or blended when used. Having incurred a back injury, which still plagues me, I visited for an extended period a Veterans Administration hospital for therapy, when I had the chance of doing many of the following.

11 August 2008