RomanticRealism

Thanks Nick, I'm happy you like it.

My recently completed digital painting "Winged Victory"

Here is my new painting "An Active Mind". I have larger detail images at www.vanoostromfineart.com

My digital painting "The Light Within". Giclée prints available at www.vanoostromfineart.com

Here is my latest digital painting entitled "A Tribute To Atlas". I have included enlarged detail images in my online gallery here: www.vanoostromfineart.com I hope you enjoy it!

Yes, digital painting. The printed version is giclée on canvas.

Here is my latest painting, Woman Wrapped In Silk.

Architecture was a good field to convey new ideas battling to replace and improve upon traditional views, views held only because they were traditional. Contrast that with modern "art" replacing traditional art - Henry Moore's blobs replacing Michelangelo's sculpture. Of course improving on traditional art is a good thing, but with blobs?

Mostly decoration.

That would include a very large field. And I think that if we make sure that art includes everything nobody's feeling will get hurt. However, if I say that architecture, photography, decoration are not art, I do not diminish those creative endeavours in any way, I simply recognise them for what they are. BUT, what really irks me is that when every creation is regarded as art, when it is not, and to include every creation DOES diminish art as being unique.

Okay, so what is the difference between visual fine art as I have presented it and the design disciplines? I use design discipline as a contrast because it is similar to Non-representational "art" and decoration. Decoration including abstract patterns only deal with attributes, omitting the entities they relate to; colour, texture, shape. The best cognitive level these attributes can reach are sensations. When these attributes are used in a design discipline combined with form (including light) such as architecture or jewelry design it then becomes perceptual - perceptual relationships between

If we stick to the visual arts - I am game.

If you learn about the physics of sound and observe certain components that make up music and then draw particular conclusions from it, that's fine. But when you apply those same conclusions to the visuals arts, that is just rationalism - it has absolutely no basis in reality. Especially when it negates everything we already know about the visual arts - that is, it must represent actual objects for it to convey any possible meaning. When I mention clarity it is in relation to the style of an artwork. The term purity is only use in a specific painting technique which is optional.

Firstly, there is an important clarification I must make. When I referred to burnt sienna as an example, I used it in the way an artist uses it to paint ie subtractive colours NOT additive colours. When subtractive colours are mixed they become darker, or "muddier" when paint is applied to a surface or in the printing process. That is why they add black to the printing process, because cyan, magenta, yellow together become too brown. Additive colours become brighter when light is mixed together ie monitors, projectors. RGB colours are additive - but can be translated to paint colours for when

The method is not the same but the end result is ie to clearly portray and "communicate" a theme by the artist. This does not justify "abstract art" which portrays nothing.