Here is a painting I did years ago. Some people regard this as a failure of mine. I'm not sure if you can see it, but it's a nude by a pool. A lot of people look at it and tell me that they can't see it. When I got back to Perth, a few years ago, I showed my mother, and asked her, "What is it?" She immediately saw it. I'm not sure what other people had against this painting of mine. Maybe it's because it wasn't actually painted on. The paint was poured on the canvas board. The paint is actually something like 4mm thick. If you look at most normal paintings, they would never be this thick (unless it's Jackson Pollock or another artist who pours paint). I thought it was a great triumph for myself when I did it (back in 2000). Why did everyone else who saw it, consider it to be crap? It takes a lot of control to pour the paint straight onto canvas like that. It's harder in some respects than painting with a brush. Still, I like the painting, and still consider it a triumph. The poor reception it has received has stopped me painting any more in this style till I get some more money together. (This much paint costs a bit of $MONEY$) There will however, be more of this style once I can afford it. This painting has approximately a litre of acrylic paint on it. It's rather heavy.
It also suffered a slight mis-hap. My old flatmate didn't like me leaving paintings around the flat. I placed it on the bath, thinking the canvas board was strong enough to support the weight. My mistake. The thing sagged, and I had a painting which was shaped like a U. The head was at the top of one end of the U, and the buttocks were at the other end of the U. It took quite a bit of effort to straighten it out. It's still warped a bit. Just like me! :-) It also meant the paint ran into the middle, and I had to correct it somewhat.
What is your opinion?
["Nude By Pool" Painting Copyright 2000-2005 David Stevenson]