Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Denouement - Michael Newberry

Reposted, because tomorrow night I'm posting the story behind this gorgeous painting. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Previous picture changed for this one, above, whose colours are a closer match to the real colours.



  1. Hem hem. 'Gorgeous' is certainly in the eye of the beholder on this one I would say... The one thing that always strikes me with the Newberry paintings you post up is that his use of colour is, umm, enhusiastic. The composition in this piece is fairly staid, and the contrast and interplay of colour is jarring and a bit ugly in my esteem.

    Luckily it can be objectively established as 'art' using the principles of Romantic Realism, otherwise I would have to conclude that I really didn't like it!


  2. You can always say "I don't like it." The thing is, with good art, either liking it or not liking it says something about the beholder. :-)

    For instance, I play a piece of cheerful music to two people. "I can't stand it," says one, "because it's so cheerful." "I love it," says the other, "because it's so cheerful."

    The music is what it is. It's your evaluation that says a lot about the importance, to you, of being cheeful.

    For instance, here you say you don't like his use of colour: too enthusiastic. Someone else says they love Newberry's use of colour: so enthusiastic.

    The colour is enthusiastic. That's the point. ;^)

    More later about the composition.

  3. Can't say I really noticed the colours :)


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.