That is exactly what i read in an interview...." I started out abstract , then the storyteller in me became very strong so I had to somehow find a way to combine this..."

They're a lot like music in the minor key. Initially they're like encountering Stravinsky after being overly familiar with earlier composers like Bach and Verdi. At first a bit horrifying but, for me anyway, after being unwittingly influenced by them after only glancing at them very briefly (tsk tsk what my mind is doing when I'm not watching! :o ) becoming quite truthful and, ultimately, quite beautiful. There are so many minor keys in colours, marks, emotion, life - if you are willing to let yourself see them.

I am looking forward to see how they are going to influence you, Ilaria!

Thanks for posting them, Grethe.

But is`nt abstract principles and thinking quite impossible in portraiture?
would maybe work like this be setting the standards for the future and be remembered in history for making significant changes to representational portraiture?
I doubt it.

Grethe

Grethe,

I think you are absolutely right. No matter how "loose" a portrait of someone (or something) is painted, it is nevertheless a representational work of art. When the viewer fails to be able to identify or name any particular object or thing, it then becomes an abstract image. A painting can be "pushed" to the brink of abstraction, but still be representational; but beyond which, at a certain point, we will not be able to call it representational.

The problem I have with these paintings is not so much how the figures are rendered - (they are actually not that loosely rendered and contain quite a bit of recognizable detail; how well or not they are painted is a judgement call, and, as I see it a separate issue). The main problem I have with these is all the wild (free), gestural paint smears that seem to exist only for their own sake, that don't relate to or support in the least, the figures themselves, thereby making a unified, complete artistic statement impossible. These paintings (of the King and Queen) look schizophrenic to me.

I did look at some of this artist's other work, and some of it was far superior to these: more unified, consistent and intriguing...they deserve a serious look at least.

But even with these (as with any modern - especially "modernist") paintings, the big question - as you indicated - is always there, lurking in the background: will this work stand the test of time?

I doubt it.

David

I think that the analogy of music is a possible key to understand the essence of art painting.

It is the how and not the what you do that qualifies you to call your self an artist.

The 'how' could be the economy of the brushstrokes, i.e. how you describe a shadow, how you make the transition from skin to hair, edges, basically the information that the single brushstroke hold.

The 'what' is if you paint a Queen or a Cucumber.

In a portrait the what and the how must support each other.

I believe that the 'how' should be regarded as abstract elements and the most interesting parts of any painting. Anyway to those who
have no interest in the person portrayed.

If we talk about music it will not qualify for being a work of quality that it is a sentimental love song if it does not sound good. Why would Elvis do takes after takes if it were not for perfection of expression.

Expression is all, when it comes to survival of art, and thank you for that. ;)

Thank you David for finding the words, I could`nt agree more.

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]I think that the analogy of music is a possible key to understand the essence of art painting.

Allan, I agree, it is indeed.

I cant help thinking that the most important issue for the modernist painter is to force him/her self to bring out something that has not been done before. And that he believes that nothing at all should be repeated from the past. He is afraid to look back in time. And throws his brush
around to make sure he will not be compared with someone from the past. And in the end , if he`s lucky , he will be blessed by the king and queen.

Grethe

[QUOTE=Grethe Angen.
I cant help thinking that the most important issue for the modernist painter is to force him/her self to bring out something that has not been done before.Grethe[/QUOTE]

The King spoke: " You are wonderful, you are all individuals !" and the crowd responded jubilantly, " Yes, we are all individuals !".
A little man, over in the corner, said. " I'm not, I do portraits!"

Update:
I mean that, If they all want to be something special, how come that they all try to do the same thing ?

I guess that it will be too much to expect that so very many people has the qualifications to become real artists. It takes both talent and hard work. History will tell !

The situation here in Denmark is even worse, since the upcoming Nordic Portrait Competition's terms specifies that: "unlike the Anglo-Saxon Countries, we will accept all sorts of portraits in any medium i. e. abstract painting, photo, video etc. and not only traditional painting and sculpture."

I find the idea to accept abstract painting for a portrait competition rather amusing.
Allan I wonder if it will be an abstract portrait that wins! :)