Galerie Verdun Art News

Issue for April 18, 2005

Texture That Can't Be Reproduced

Did you ever see an abstract painting that appeared to have a very striking textural surface only to be disappointed when you get closer and realize it was just a copy?

Oil paintings and even acrylic paintings, in some cases, offer varying textures that add character and mystique for the observer to enjoy. But when these textured paintings are reproduced, those wonderfully exciting passages are compressed down to the two-dimensional surface of the print and lost. Even if it was printed on canvas to simulate a painting, the copy just can't offer the same experience the original does. If you really want to get the most of what original oil paintings offer, there is no substitute. Only the real thing measures up.

This is especially true with vibrantly colored abstract paintings. Depending on the artist's particular style, the texture of the paint itself is such an integral part of the work that reproductions are just out of the question. These works just have to be painted and sold as originals. To see a few examples of such works, visit our galleries and browse through the abstract paintings of Curtis and Leon Verdun.

Can Computers Replace Artists?

It's amazing what computers can do! Aren't artists' careers in jeopardy when computers can be programmed to draw and paint?

But the ability to draw does not an artist make. Skill does not equate to art. Skill is not what defines art. An emotion, thought, statement, feeling and THEN having the skill to communicate it to another - that is art. Art, by definition, MUST be something that can't be generated by a computer.

Though art does not equate to skill, it does require some skill in order to be effective, since it is not just simply communication of an emotion, but skillful communication of an emotion - skilled in a way that the artist chooses colors, composes forms and constructs the elements of a work in a way that most effectively communicates what he wants to say. The better the result and the better the reception, the better the art.

This communication involves two elements; the artist and the observer. Effectiveness of the art depends on both. If the receiver doesn't "get it", then the art is less effective - its value is diminished. Yes, the actual value of art changes depending on who is looking at it! That's not that strange. Our monetary value system works the same way. That's the way an auctioned item finds its value - by the highest amount someone is willing to pay. (If the bidder suddenly dies and no one else wants it at that price, is that price still considered the correct value of the item?)

This is why the greatest art of all time is not the best drawn or the most realistic. The greatest artworks are the ones that move us. They speak to us in ways the best photographs never can. It's not a matter of how well it was drawn, but a matter of how well the artist projected his emotions to the viewer. After all, art should be defined and measured by its creative expression, where one soul speaks to another.