​

I recognize the various skill levels and abilities projected in all types of art. There are techniques and theories applied to all forms of art, and there is always a certain amount of technical ability required to execute properly. However, technical ability is not a substitute for creativity.

 

It is my belief that art should engage the viewer, whether it asks a question, answers one or just tells the artists' story. It's the audience that determines its value on a very personal level. The point of the exercise is to cause the viewer to be aware of what is being said, and evaluate the work according to their own interest in the subject matter. They can either agree or disagree, but it's a personal decision. They have to accept the work as their own interpretation and not be concerned with the story behind the work. The artist has made his/her statement in paint. It's the viewer that has to figure out what it means to them.

​

In today's art market there are a number of theories that attempt to explain what we are meant to accept as art in the public gallery system. The art speak used by curators and critics alike to promote what they describe as contemporary work, is intended to convince us that

what we are looking at is really art. Art has become an entertainment medium, so the weirder the better to attract more attention and therefore greater sales to the unknowing public.

 

Unfortunately, real art (representative art) has always been available, but it is not in general shown or recognized as such by the system. The more traditional, representative work that has captured past and present insight into the development of our society is not as readily available as it should be. 

Real art must speak for itself and should be defined as such to understand the changes in culture that are taking place.