Okay no one wants to talk serious art philosophy so here's a self promoting post!
I received an Honorable Mention award in the Art Guild of Orange Parks
(http://www.artguildoforangepark.com/)
show at the First Street Gallery

(http://www.firststreetgalleryart.com/)
in Neptune Beach.
Yeah for me!

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?