Wot's that all about, then?
The missus is a trained (by trained, I mean she studied it in St. Martins, like) artist.
In such, I reckon she reckons that anything she paints, as a result, is art.
I say that that's fucking shite.
Not to say that what she paints is shite, like. A lot of it looks good.
However, just looking good doesn't quite cut it, like. Doesn't there have to be some semblance of depth to qualify it as Art? Technique isn't enough.
By that I mean portraiture or still lives, no matter the perspective or angle or given light, it's still a static piece and has no deeper meaning behind it, like.
Haven't all of those been bled out to their fulfilment?
I would like to think that she should strive towards classical art, by that I mean pictures with deeper meaning, symbolism, an acute demonstration of the human condition and all that shite.
For all of her technical talent, all she wants to do is paint portraits of our kids. Nothing wrong with that, like. But she could paint our kids into a grander piece.