Below is a sketch for a plain and simple red circular object that I plan to make when the weather improves. My ambition is that it will hang in a state of minimalist implacability.
Why do I plan to do this? It has been on my mind for awhile and represents my usual mixture of ambition and sloth. Also it is in some respects a response to recent discussions of “perfection” and “beauty”. I’m looking to make something that is ambiguous in reference to either term.
How so? A circle is the simplest of shapes and admits to no variation except the extend of its radius. As a geometrical figure with infinite degrees of symmetry it is perfect. As for beauty, the usual comparisons of more or less, better or worse that inform the word do not apply – there are no better circles. Moreover, one can make a circular object quite simply and with a high degree of uniformity thus bypassing most issues of facture.
The chosen color refers to conventions surrounding love and pain which both tend to employ a blood red. This started out as a pie chart with a dividing line, but a deepening realization of the inextricable commingling of both sensations in the human condition made the line superfluous. I find no comparative value in this choice as the red simply suits the subject.
So there it is: The Ratio Of Love And Pain. How would you propose to critique it?
There is always an on going conversation with representational artist about the use of tools, like mirrors, photos, projectors, grids etc. and the question of whether or not the use of these tools constitutes cheating. As if there is some unfair advantage in using these tools and conversely sainthood when you don’t use them. But the use of any tool as well as not using one does not make a drawing or painting better, especially representation works. When we have completed a painting of someone, what we have is not that person, regardless of the tools we used. What we have is our interpretation of that person on canvas or paper and it is the interpretation that is the most important part. I’ve heard this story about Gertrude Stein and Picasso many times and can guess that it is true. Supposedly on seeing this portrait of herself she said to Picasso “It doesn’t look anything like me” and he responded “that in time it will”. I and many other people that I know have seen photos of Ms. Stein and they don’t look anything like her. It’s the Picasso interpretation that I remember best.
I believe everything we create is about us, what we feel, what’s important to us and what we want to say about it. Being skillful is helpful, but it doesn’t guarantee that you’ve got something to say. (As a kid, I was very skillful playing the piano scales, that is as far as it got). Creativity can be seen as a interpretation of what we believe is physically real. This small painting is a wp interpretation. 
