Brad Kreiger posted on Facebook: As a non-objective artist, I never understood why some painters feel the need for all of their paintings to look alike. I mean if I paint a square does that mean I have to paint squares for the rest of my life? There are too many elements and ideas to explore to limit oneself to one motif. Let's not make it too easy for the art historians and future art history students....
Oh good, an opportunity for art talk. There must be a happy medium, and I don't quote Mr. Ross when I say "happy". If you make a square that stands out from all of the others in the world, why not make a few more just to see if you can do it again, and perfect it? Even Roots and Brauch, the two artist that come to mind when I think of exploring in their field, light on the petal for more than one drink.
Being one of the 'explorers', I can appreciate the desire to move into yet another direction: the illusive butterfly is my friend. I think it's possible to make more than one masterpiece in a lifetime and if you don't push the square with the desire to make it one of them, how will you know if it might have been one?
Managing the Brood
5 hours ago