Salvador Dali: "Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it." I would probably be a bad art critic since my observations of paintings are very subjective. With other at forms, like writing, I think I may know why Shakespeare is so celebrated.
I even loved Titus Andronicus, Shakespeare’s first play and often considered a bad one, when it was done at the Globe Theatre in London. It was campy, with the heads of two arrogant young men baked in pies and served to the mother—gruesome, yes—but also hilarious. It is still a bad play, however.
Maybe it worked because it was performed in a wildly comic bizarre fashion. Regarding the art of painting, it either grabs me or doesn’t, and I can’t say why. I am definitely not a painter.
As a viewer of art works, I prefer paintings that are semi realistic, so I at least know what I am looking at—and I particularly love the impressionists like Monet. I don’t admire abstract art or super realism. Why paint a realistic painting if one can use a camera? Vincent van Gogh, a post-impressionist, created paintings that seem to leap off the canvas, but my response to his works might be partly due to the fame and mystique surrounding him and his art.
I would argue, however, that no one is immune to Van Gogh’s artistry. His Starry Night painted in 1889 at the asylum of Saint-Paul-de-Mausole near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence is a good example of contrasting styles. The stars in the “starry night” swirl over a quiet static village a.
