Stripped

I generally do my best to stay away from chaos, especially when order is brought out of it. As a "cutter" in the early 80's, this type of vision usually brings back the old urge to kill the pain through pain. And like anything else that is "self medicating", it might go away, but does it ever really stay away?

With new artists, it is essential that we remind ourselves for them that when rating vision, the lower the score, the better, Here one could easily go with a 1 1/2 or a 2, but I cut it straight down the middle at 2 1/2. It is obviously not worthy of the coveted "half-star" because of the ambiguity of the other side of the pain/pleasure coin. The pain is painstakingly obvious (which we will elaborate on in technique and originality) but the pleasure is not, thus there is not as much of an opportunity for the viewer to project their own interpretation of the vision upon this particular piece.

I could have gone as low as a 2 if the gender identification were more clouded, and the possibility of a social justice issue such as "gay rights" being a possible interpretation, but alas the gender is clear, as well as the overall tone of the image being clear. (if you can see the clarity in chaos.)

Is this image original? To the artist, no. To you and I, yes.

Because of my reminiscence of the 80's. I wanted to initially strike the artist down with 3 stars, justifying it as "The gallery is full of this", but how fair would that be now? That would be like punishing Matisse for defining the "plastic arts", the myth of "one-of-a-kind" does not apply to style or technique.

So for originality it gets a 4. I could have gone another 1/2 star if there were less examples in the gallery, but in the end, that would only make that half star irrelevant in the larger picture of the artists portfolio.

It is "original" because of the chaos itself, not the order. (that is technique) The randomness of the image, the ability to "find something new" when one stops to refocus on the image, after the taking in and digesting of the prior dissection.

The technique is where the 4 1/2 stars are the most deserved. The order that is brought out of the chaos, the ability to tie everything together in a rather violent harmony is what shines here.

There is no possibility for a 5 here, because of my own bitterness that I projected upon the image at initial impact. When I first viewed it, it angered me, (which we will discuss in impact) and hence, the rating froze at that very second. One of the hazards of critiquing on initial impact.

Part of the technique score comes directly from the originality itself, the melodic use of the colors, though violent in harmony, give the image strength, give it depth, give it a breathing life that has the ability to capture and hold the viewer.

And what of impact? Should it not be a 3 1/2 like its sister vision? (vision and impact directly affect each other for us)

No. Because of my initial range of unwanted feelings upon initial impact, I restored the 1 1/2 stars that were not in play for vision. Even though the vision may be off and on for clarity, the impact is certainly not.

The detail of both the chaos and order demand that one submit a thought or feeling for this piece, even the cretin could not simply stroll by without some sort of remark to be made.

I must venture that somewhere in there is the pleasure side of the coin, that when "stripped away" leaves the viewer with their own reality of what is inside of them. For me it was and still is a bitterness and frustration over my own inability to bring order out of the chaos of both my past and present, and the fear of my lack of control continuing on into the future.

Overall the piece itself is a wonderful example of a gallery and artist worthy of watching, and worthy of allowing his work to play a part in your own introspection...