Rate my painting This is made up.of water colour

Result #1

and graphite watercolors. Side by side, one is always a little bit more beautiful, it seems to me, than the other. (And if you doubt this, remember that I know it better than you.) But theres a difference between a little bit more beautiful and a little bit more beautiful and neither in the same painting. The one is a bit more beautiful, its one of its kind, whereas the other, its an image that has been represented by a whole lot of others. A lot of other pictures by a lot of others.

Result #2

Rate my painting This is made up.of water colour squares and irregularly shaped rectangular formations. These elements are intersticed by circles, ridges, and several round features. The best works are those that end in a circle or a ridge, some which are longer than a square, some of which are less than one. Perhaps the best will always be the one that is, at least for one minute, in the same line as the painted circle or ridge. The most successful are those that end in either a square or a rectangle. I am talking about works made within two years, usually of one size, or of two, or of three. One of the most successful pieces in the exhibition is an 18 in which the features are broken into two sets of parallel diagonal lines. The horizontal bars are graduated in a square, and the top horizontal line is staggered in a diagonal position from the middle of the painting. The top and the bottom horizontal lines are not, but each has a corner cut at its middle point. The diagonal degrees are in the right angle and from the center, and each has a circle of radius equal to its length, parallel to the diagonal. This piece was one of the finest, most visually interesting paintings in the show.M. M. Ferber makes wonderful paintings, and these are more visually interesting than the best in this show. It is interesting to see a pair of fairly similar pieces in one exhibition, and one without any of the features she has. The difference between the works is a difference of material: she is a scraped wood artist with picturesque vista views, and her paints a more dimensional presence than does the rest of the works. Because of this, the similarities become very obvious. However, the differences are one more: to a great extent, they are issues of scale. She is really a smallish artist and paints with a high degree of detail. She paints all the surfaces in the same medium. She uses most of the same colors and paints in the same manner.

Result #3

Rate my painting This is made up.of water colour, collage, powder, pencil, and paint; a series of single square panels on heavy canvas, with a vertical hem of canvas backing at the top. On two large sheets, the overlapping colors are in stark contrast to the in-between ones. On the smaller sheets, the layers were stacked vertically, and on the highest I saw some very slight differences, such as a few smudges or a couple of overshadows. The painted painting was all white and had very few tones of color except for black and blue; it was a kind of really pale black, a common hothouse effect, perhaps, of making the paint a thick, coating grayish gray that faded over the time. The paint was not applied lightly and not applied with a paint brush—it was applied with a tool. The product did not stand on its own. From a visual point of view, the product was a kind of shadow and reflection. It was not meant to be seen, to be handled. One could view it as a kind of conceptually-oriented abstraction, as if one were moving along a track, or as a result of some kind of flowchart. One was able to see it as a kind of shadow, just as one saw a shadow seen from a height.There were two paintings that were a bit more complicated than the others, but they were easier to understand, and more subtle. One was a series of rectangles. Each is a square of thick, black paint, with a thin, white border. A thin strip of blue paint separated the two squares and covered the whole; there was a bit of a silver/brownish-gray gray/black in the middle. The paint was applied on a gridded, very thick sheet. The color was not the same, more intense and brighter than those paintings; each painted square was not identical. The effect was not transparent, transparent but difficult to get in: light and dark, wet and dry.

Result #4

, wet hoses and press-button circuitry. Smiths focus is on mechanical procedures, particularly for those products of American industrial technology, such as vacuum-form plastic, television sets, and the like. A basic unpretentiousness is present in his work, which is not at all effusive or sentimental.His pictures are not crude but real; they have the quality of semi-precious, genuine pieces of silver. There is a flatness to his technique, not unlike that of earlier American abstractionists. In one work of a small group he has thematic associations, such as the natural world and the human body. Smiths imagery is far less literal than in the abstractionists, but his results are richly layered. His range of hues is wider than that of most American abstraction, and his paintings are as good as any theyve had to date. Smiths images are not merely beautiful, they are profound. In The Stars, for example, he has thematic associations that go far beyond the ordinary ones that tend to define abstract imagery. Smiths great strength is his mastery of the complex, seemingly inconsequential, yet important, in itself. His work makes us want to remain apart, to allow him time to make sense of the enormous variety of his ideas.

Result #5

Rate my painting This is made up.of water colour on a deep-blue background with a red and yellow border. The colour is a combination of four warm tones: rich, rich, rich, rich. The transition from these two bases is always smooth, smooth. The painting is what you see, its image, its surface.You dont need any visual clues to understand what is happening. Its not as apparent as one might like to think. The painting looks like a wave passing behind a black curtain; as soon as the curtain falls, the waves start to fade away. This idea is a fundamental part of Peacocks painting, the artist says, as much as the light. Peacock is also a kind of machine, an instrument of thought and of contemplation, a tool that seems to be making itself a living object in the world.There is a sort of sensuality in this painting. The sky is a kind of luminous, luminous sky, like the sky in nature. Peacock describes nature, the nature of light, as a construction of images, with no visual information, no information other than the images themselves. To turn around and look at the sky, you must look at something else, but the images are not in their own right. Peacock must be able to do that without having any notion of time. Peacock says in the catalogue that the sky is made up of image, of the way things are made up, of what comes out, not what is. Peacocks watercolors are the most complex and mysterious images that he has ever produced, and they make you feel as though you are having fun with the strangeness of the world. These paintings are so strange that they seem completely separate from the world of art. The only thing that makes one aware of the strangeness of the world is the fact that there is a world of images that are completely lost in themselves. This is what makes a work such a good experience.