Get Real, But Not Too Real

Many people like abstract paintings. Many people don't. It seems most either love them or they don't like them very much, if at all.

From the Pier
Acrylic on Canvas Board
7 x 9 in/18 x 23 cm
Copyright 2013

I am one of those painters who like some abstract paintings--primarily those in which my mind can take the shapes and colors and put them into some type of order that allows me to make sense of the image before me. The other ones, no, thank you.

That's why I have not been in a rush to visit the Picasso Black and White exhibit now on display at the MFAH but ending soon. I may not make it, but I don't think that makes me a bad art person. More power to Picasso; he has plenty of fans already.

I do like representational paintings more than abstract. I like the painting to tell a story or at least have the ability for the viewer to make up a story.

However, liking the representational style doesn't mean I like all those baroque, neo-classical, and/or romantic paintings that were so prevalent up until the 19th century. I don't. They're either too dark or have too much theology or are just not very interesting (although well painted). Also, photo-realism is a bit much for me.

You may know I do like the loose, realistic paintings of the Impressionists, although at the time they were criticized for being everything but that. I like John Singer Sargent. I like Winslow Homer. I like Georgia O'Keeffe--her landscapes not her flowers. I also like Edward Hopper, although, except for his watercolors, he didn't paint very loose. I can take or leave Gauguin, Matisse, and Picasso as I've already said.

I do like several current painters who paint in the representational style of contemporary realism, such as Frank Serrano, Kevin MacPherson, Qiang-Huang, Joseph Zbukvic, and John Hammond to name a few who paint in oil, watercolor, and acrylic, respectively.

If you also like representational paintings, you may want to check out their work.