issuevoter wrote on Jan 1
st, 2021 at 8:18am:
There's a lot of this kind of painting around today, where the draughtsmanship has old-school accuracy, and the colour palette is hyper-primary. I'll be the first to admit I don't understand the choices.
https://i.postimg.cc/TY9rv54T/S-Fisher.jpg The artist could be colour blind or trying to express their first impression of such a landscape when they encountered it. The worst reason for this coloration could be to make the work sell.
‘Fashion’ in the fine arts could be the simple explanation. On the other hand an experience I had in a friend’s commercial gallery might explain things.
I’d always regarded my art as no more than for my own relaxation and therapy refusing to sell any even to friends. My gallery owner friend invited me to an opening he was putting on suggesting I’d actually enjoy the experience and change my mind about putting on an exhibition of my own stuff. I coped with the cheap wine, crappy food etc but when I overheard a couple discussing a particular painting I departed determined to never get involved in the commercial side of the art world.
Here’s a brief précis of the conversation I witnessed.
Him “Darling, I really like this one and it would fit perfectly over the sideboard in the dining room”
Her “No way would that look good against the orange leather on the dining chairs”
Him “But darling, I’m sure if we ask the artist he’ll do a version for us with lots of orange’
If any of you think this is a modern phenomena familiarity with the Vatican’s history of patronage and demands of artists would change your mind.