I am only interested in painting the actual person, in doing a painting of them, not in using them to some ulterior end of art. For me, to use someone doing something not native to them would be wrong.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You know, if one paints someone's portrait, one should not know him if possible.
If technique is of no interest to a writer, I doubt that the writer is an artist.
No one is an artist unless he carries his picture in his head before painting it, and is sure of his method and composition.
I don't paint. I am a hobbyist photographer, so I relate to the visual arts that way, but I'm not a painter.
I work as an artist, and I think the audience of one, which is the self, and I have to satisfy myself as an artist. So I always say that I write for the same people that Picasso painted for. I think he painted for himself.
Part of my work is dedicated to artisanship and can only be done by very few people because it requires a specific technique. Being an artist is being at the service of yourself; I am at the service of other people.
To be an artist is not a matter of making paintings or objects at all. What we are really dealing with is our state of consciousness and the shape of our perceptions.
I used to paint landscapes without any people in them but now I paint people who happen to be in a particular place. They might be outside a pub, or on a beach or in a studio. They might have clothes on or they might not.
What an artist is trying to do for people is bring them closer to something, because of course art is about sharing. You wouldn't be an artist unless you wanted to share an experience, a thought.
There's no wrong way of doing art. It's an expression of the individual.