Search

Some woman at a dinner party last week, after I tell her I paint figurative work, she says "oh but abstract is so much easier, right? You don't have to worry about it looking like anything." I did not say what I wanted to say. I said "no, abstraction is its own discipline" like a polite robot. But what I wanted to say is: try painting a hand that looks like a hand and then come talk to me about what's easy. The disrespect is so casual. As if centuries of craft, of learning to see, of mixing a flesh tone that actually breathes, as if that's just the tedious part you get through before you're allowed to make real art. Anyway I came home and scraped a canvas I'd been working on for weeks. Not because of her. But also a little because of her.

I counted today while I was cleaning out my flat files and it's 47. Same window, same apartment, I've lived here three years and I just never get tired of the way the light hits that one corner of the frame around 4pm in winter. Sometimes it's the whole window, sometimes just the sill, sometimes it's basically abstract and you'd never know what it is until I tell you. My mom called me while I was counting and she laughed and said "honey that's not a series, that's a problem" and honestly she might be right. But there's something about coming back to the same shape over and over that's the most honest painting I do. No pressure to be interesting, just me and the same damn window and what the light is doing today. I'm gonna send her a photo of all 47 taped up on the floor and see what she says. Part of me wants to keep going until it's 100. Part of me thinks that's insane. Anyone else have the one subject they just never quit?

I'm still thinking about this guy, must be sixty-five, works in oil paint only, big gestural abstracts. He watched me pulling proofs for a day and then at dinner he said it with this real pity in his voice: "It's a shame, because you clearly have the eye, but you're limiting yourself to crafts." I said printmaking has been central to contemporary art since, I don't know, Dürer? And he said Dürer was a painter who also did prints. Like printmaking is just a side thing painters do when they're between ideas. The thing that gets me is the hierarchy. Oil painting = serious. Etching, screenprint, anything that involves a process and a press = decorative. It's so nineteenth century. And I didn't fight him properly because I was tired and my hands hurt from scraping, but I've been composing the argument in my head for three days now. You know when the perfect retort arrives too late?

A gallery once asked me to make my mosaics "less Greek." I thought they meant the motifs, but no, they wanted me to take the whole thing more abstract because Byzantine references were "too regional for the market." I said no, obviously, and it ended fine, but I've never forgotten it. Made me think about how much of ourselves we're expected to sand off for a white wall. What's the weirdest thing a gallery has asked you to change about your work? The request that made you stop and go wait, what?

okay so my first solo show ever, the gallery owner pulls me aside and very kindly explains that my watercolors are lovely but if I want people to actually BUY them, I should paint "more sellable" pieces. landscapes with little cottages. like the ones you see in the waiting room at a dentist's office. I stood there nodding and then went home and painted the angriest abstract thing I've made in my life and hung it dead center of the show just to be petty about it haha it did NOT sell and honestly I'm still not sorry. what's the worst thing a gallery or dealer has ever pushed you to make? did you give in, push back, or quietly paint revenge art like me

was at a friend's thing last night and someone I'd met once, twice, whatever, found out I paint. immediately: "oh I have this painting at home you should tell me if it's good." no photo. no artist name. just a vibe check on a thing I can't see. I said sure send it, and they said "I don't have it on my phone" and then just... stood there. like I was supposed to perform clairvoyance. this happens so often. people genuinely think having an art degree (dropped out, don't remind me) means you can divine the quality of any painting ever made from a verbal description. "it's like, abstract, you know?" no. I don't know. that's nothing. I know they mean well but it's the same energy as asking a doctor "my stomach feels weird, is it cancer?" with zero other info. no babe, it's probably not, but also I'm not gonna do a house call for a phantom painting. anyway I think the real answer is I should start pricing these interactions. "that'll be $40 and I'll need a photo within 24 hours or the magic wears off."

There's this late Byzantine panel from the Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki, Christ Pantokrator, standard stuff, and I copied it by hand for a conservation module back in 2004. Six weeks on my knees, matching every tessera, and I got it so close my professor kept it as a teaching example. The joke is that piece ruined me. I can't look at a face in mosaic anymore without measuring the eye spacing against that Pantokrator. Last week I finished a portrait commission, contemporary, abstracted, not even trying to be realistic, and I spent an hour staring at it thinking the left eye is two millimeters too far out. Client won't see it. Nobody will see it. But I know it's there because of a dead Byzantine emperor's face I memorized twenty years ago. Anyone else carry a reference piece in their head like a splinter? Something you studied so hard it rewired your eye permanently.

A student in my beginner botanical class yesterday insisted she could paint a Rosa gallica from memory, without a reference, using a brush that was barely damp because she wanted to "feel the energy of the flower." The result looked like a cabbage that had been in a disagreement with a stapler. I try very hard not to be prescriptive. I believe there is room for many approaches. But there is a difference between artistic freedom and refusing to learn the basic mechanics of how water and pigment behave on paper. You cannot will a wash into existence through sheer self-expression. The water has to be there. The pigment has to be mixed. These are not negotiable. She was genuinely disappointed when it didn't work, and I felt for her, but I also felt for the rose. They are not symbolic abstractions. They have a specific number of petals arranged in a specific geometry, and that is where the beauty lives, in the accuracy, not in the approximation.

I had a gallery once that liked my work but wanted me to switch to acrylic, paint bigger, and make everything "more abstract." Basically be a different artist. I said no, then spent three months wondering if I was stupid for it. Anyone else get the "we love it but can you change everything" talk? Did you bend or stand your ground?

The gallery that loved my work but never sold a piece A gallery in my city took me on years ago, warm people, they hung my paintings properly, good light, private views with real collectors in the room. And nothing ever sold. Two years. Not one piece. They kept saying the work was beautiful, serious, exactly what their clients should want. Eventually I asked, gently, who was buying what. It turned out everything that moved was small, abstract, or cheap. My big figurative interiors just sat there looking at everyone. So my question is more of a confession with an ask: when did you figure out that a gallery's taste or enthusiasm has nothing to do with whether they can sell you? And what was the sign you ignored for too long? For me it was the phrase "we love it, give it time." They loved it for two years. My bank account did not.

Stopped mid-pose today and just stared at the model's hands. She wasn't doing anything, just sitting, hands resting on her knees. And I couldn't draw them. I kept putting charcoal down and erasing, down and erasing. Fifty minutes of that. Finally she asked if I needed a break and I said no, I'm fine, I just forgot how to see for a second. She laughed. The whole room laughing at my crisis. Then I turned the paper sideways and drew the hands as abstract shapes, not hands. Just dark masses and the light where the skin folded. It worked. It's the best drawing I've made in a month. I don't know why I keep needing to be reminded that the answer is almost always to stop naming what I'm looking at. The second I called them "hands" they became a problem. The second I called them "dark shapes against light" they were just true. Anyway. Tonight I'm in love with that drawing and tomorrow I might hate it. The usual.

A gallery once told me they'd take my interiors "if I brightened them up", wanted to hang them next to some very cheerful abstract stuff. I said no, politely, and never heard back. Zero regrets, but I still wonder if that was stupid. So, the question: has a gallery ever asked you to change your work to fit their space, and did you do it? Where's the line between adjusting and selling out? I know some people say a gallery knows its buyers, that a little shift is just business. But I've also seen painters sand the edges off everything they did trying to please one room and end up with nothing. Give me your story. Especially the ones where you said no and it went fine, or where you said yes and it paid off.

went to a friend's opening last night and this man I've never met walks up to a piece I have in the show, it's this big mixed-media thing I worked on for months, central image is this dead elm against a gray sky, torn paper and charcoal and some old family photos collaged into the roots, and he goes "love the texture but you're burying the lede, that tree is a downer, crop it to just the bottom third and you've got something people would actually buy" i just stood there holding my wine. didn't say anything useful. just nodded like a malfunctioning toy. and now i'm lying in bed at 7am still replaying it and thinking about all the things i should have said. the tree is the whole point my guy. the tree is doing the work. you want me to make you a nice little abstract of some roots? go buy a print at homegoods.

a girl in my studio's open session last night asked me to take a look at her piece. big abstract thing, mostly palette knife, lots of texture. i actually liked the bones of it. told her the composition was fighting itself in the lower left quadrant, too much heavy color pulling the eye down and nothing anchoring the top right to balance it. suggested she either pull some of that weight up or knock the bottom back with a glaze. she goes "i disagree, i think the tension is the point." okay. sure. then why'd you ask? i don't mind someone having a vision. i mind someone asking for help and then treating it like a debate. like i'm not trying to boss you around, i'm just telling you what my eye does when it lands on your canvas. you can take it or leave it, but don't make me defend my own visual cortex lol. i told her "fair enough, it's your painting" and walked off. felt rude but also i'm not gonna stand there and argue about why i see what i see. anyway this happens more than i'd expect and i'm curious how other people handle it. i used to dig in and try to explain myself but lately i just shrug and let them figure it out. saves my energy.

found a palette from 2021 in my closet today. dried paint all cracked and layered, colors i don't even buy anymore. genuinely prettier than anything i painted that year. i have like six of these lying around. they're useless but i can't throw them out because they look like little abstract paintings that someone else made and i'm jealous of them lol