It often seems that the latest work is the one I am most in love with. Many of them don't have "staying power" for me. Not that I don't still think they are good. It's just that I get bored with them, I think, and become indifferent. There are a few that I continue to love immensely, though. Usually they have some kind of emotional connection beyond their "looks". Like, "Larry's Spring" which I painted from a photo of my dear friend who is sadly gone from this world, or anything I paint of Guantanamo Bay. This is my latest love:

"Before the Faeries Arrive"

This is actually the first in a series. I am working on number two - which I also love. I am certain I will do a third.

I hope to start a dialogue.

I've been thinking alot about what the differences are between painting and photography as an art form. Since I took up painting again, I've had my share of failures. But sometimes it wasn't a matter of execution. I tend to paint from photographs and choose photographs that I like and that evoke a feeling of some measure in me. The problem with some of these failures is that though the photographic image may be lovely, powerful, interesting and beautiful etc, as a painting the image fails.

And so the question is why?

I've been thinking about it a bit. But haven't really concluded anything.

Some of it may be a lack of "focal point". Do we demand more of a painting when it comes to this? There must be a more obvious reason a painting was painted?