Of what I have read in art texts and magazines, witnessed and discussed personally, and been taught (or preached to) in school; the single purpose of art is communication. If I was creating solely for the purpose of communication I would only be a writer or public speaker. But I am a visual artist. When all else is stripped away I am simply a creator of images.

What good is a speaker who speaks so softly no one can hear him? What good is a writer if his command of grammar is so terrible his words are incomprehensible? Much of the visual art produced today suffers because it over emphasizes message over form. What good is a work of art that "could" communicate a wonderful idea but is not visually pleasing or interesting enough to hold the viewers' attention long enough for them to discern the work's meaning?

The general public is disgusted with the work being presented to them today. There are artists (and writers of art) who dismiss the public's opinion as being ignorant or uninformed. These same people proclaim art as being a form of communication only. How is there art and writing about message and meaning if the public neither understands nor likes it enough to care? Are theses artists and writers producing only for themselves in some sort of mutal admiration society?

This is not to say that art cannot communicate deep philosophical, social, political, or religious ideas but it is conveyed through a visual medium. We must first interest the viewers to hold their attention and then, and only then, will they desire a meaning. An art work has failed if an artistic statement is what is required to give the work purpose or success as a piece. If an artist claims that his work is an expression of his inner being or mind and his art is ugly, what does that say about his soul?

"We believe in the autonomy of art; art for us is not the means but the end; any artist who has in view anything but the beautiful is not an artist in our eyes." Theophile Gautier',1856

This painting is based upon Vermeer's work titled the same. It's meaning is only what you see and put into it yourself, and yes, I see the irony in attaching a written diatribe railing against the over intellectualization of the modern art world to a work which essentially has no meaning whatsoever; besides beauty of course.

Acrylic and Oil on Canvas

2001