Why do so many people ask what you paint on?or what paper you draw on or what pen? is that normal for every painter?
I have no idea. If you find you, let me know.
The way you apply acrylic is pretty hard to figure out. With other painters the brush strokes are a pretty visible, so maybe the reason you get asked, at least in this setting, is that digital photos don't really give you as many clues as to how it was produced. I think trying to figure out the process involved is really important to aspiring artists when looking at work. I mean you could have made the girls in the Naked Girl Business Paintings using a Wacom Tablet and Photoshop and seeing them, my first question would still be how. I think the reason you're victimized(?) in this way is that you're so technically proficient that people who can draw well see your work and want to know what makes them look good beyond your observation and drawing chops. And we want to steal it.
I try to make paint do things that you haven't seen it do before. If other painters don't do that, they should. Otherwise, what are we paying them for?
we're paying them for a good return on an investment. art, like so many things, is as much about being worth money as it about being a creative gesture, or whatever. a lot of it gets bought and sold with the hopes of turning a profit rather than being appreciated by whoever bought it. the paid production of art is not always very idealistic. ever watch madmen? remember what cooper says about the rothko hanging in his office? "I expect that thing to double in value" cooper owned the painting because it was a sound investment, the return on which most stocks in even the best economy have difficulty comparing to. now, the fact that the best investments are also made by some of the most innovative artists...well, i for one say that's hardly coincidence.
The observation that many people see art as an investment is fantastically commonplace and obvious. You needn't have pointed it out.
And the connection between the "best investments" and the "innovative" works isn't a coincidence but it also isn't what you naively suppose it to be.
It is this:
The wealthy buy crap for whatever reason (Rothko for instance).
Now, since the wealthy own it, there is a premium on defending it intellectually and claiming it is "innovative". The people who own these things also sit on the boards of the museums that curate new shows and commission catalogue essays.
Thus, tautologically, if a few wealthy people like it, it is defended forever. Because they have an investment to protect and they own the means of protecting it.
Much like the recent real estate troubles--the companies paid to rate fishy investments were often owned or paid off by those who would profit from these investments getting good ratings.
Also: bad art is easy to copy and imitate. Thus the worst artists have the most followers. They are thus very often the most influential and their innovations are noticed since their quirks quickly and easily become ubiquitous.
So are you rich and happy Zak? Cause you do all of these hard textures and doing crazy stuff with paint. If not, then why? Forgive me for my blunt questions, just currious.
I'm very happy. and I make enough that surviving doesn't get in the way of me being happy. though even if I weren't, making good art is its own reward.