Noticing a good friend of yours doesn't share similar interests to you is often a problem in developing a fine relationship. It causes situations to become awkward, and you can't help but feel irritated, upset and an overwhelming urge to punch that person in the nose for his or her ignorance what a selfish world we live in. However, when that person is the polar opposite to you concerning a certain interest of you that you are particularly passionate about, the urge becomes that much stronger.

I am, of course, speaking from personal experience. One of my friends a good friend is one of the most ignorant people when it comes to art. His philosophy towards art is that if an artwork is an exact replica of what the artist is looking at, it is a "perfect painting" as he calls it. In fact, as an example of his ignorance, he called the wonderful Picasso painting, "Three Musicians", an ugly painting, saying it looked as though it was painted by a 4 year old on drugs'.

Art is a passion of mine, and always has been. Another passion of mine is the hatred of people's negative comments towards paintings when they themselves know nothing of art. A man, who can barely write his name legibly, believing he to be a better painter than Pablo Picasso himself, is just infuriating. If a passionate appreciator of art is reading this article, you may know what I mean.

What then, classifies a painting as the "Perfect Painting"? Should an artist's emotional impression towards a scene or an object be completely ignored? What separates a Neo-classical piece from a Dada work? They both have separate contexts, artists and intentions. The grand scale of a 6 foot high, 18th century, photo-realistic painting of a cathedral or a king could easily force the viewer to gasp. But should we classify this a "Perfect Painting"? Or should we classify the nihilistic, cynical style of a 20th century anti-art' movement, a "Perfect Painting"? They both served their purposes and caused controversy, discussion and provocative thinking; the viewer certainly looked at these paintings. Is that all that artists should aim for: people to look at their work?

I want to object to term, "Perfect Painting". I think that is possibly the most ignorant combination of any two English words existing in a modern dictionary. Art should be a reflection of the artist him or herself, and not of what the viewers think of it. If the artist is passionate about their artwork, putting as much emotion and thought into their paintings as possible, they certainly have achieved in my opinion the title of being the "Perfect Artist", but the artwork itself that they have produced should never be rated or compared. It is a demeaning form of insulting the artist. Similar to the term, "The eyes are the window to the soul", paintings are the window to the artists' soul.

Learn more about this author, Aaron Chidgzey.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Individual interpretation of what makes art?
We want to hear your view. Write now!