More Hero Worship

The other thing I marvel at about Rhapsody is its audacity. It is so big. I suppose she really had no guarantee of its being accepted when she was making it. She could not view the whole of it in her studio at one time due to its size. The outlay of materials was daunting. A couple hundred steel plates, each 12 x 12 inches, each silk screened with a grey grid. That was a large and unusual expense to incur at the outset of an iffy project.

I have a series of paintings I have been planning. Some of the images already exist in one format. Others are in the works. For the moment I have painted them in acrylic paint because its easier to use for large scale works than oil is. But I know that my idea would be better in oil paint. Oil paint has a certain "je ne sais quoi" that is unrivalled yet by other techniques.

But I've hesitated to do my ideas in large oil paintings because I wonder what the heck I'll do with them if I cannot sell them right away. Large oil paintings are more fragile than acrylic and do not store so easily.

I am admonished by Bartlett's Rhapsody, though. It might seem now, in retrospect, as though the path to stardom was always all carved out for her. But it wasn't. Yes, it's true she had tested the waters previously with similar smaller works. But they do not take anything away from the pluck of her endeavor.

Her work makes me want to paint. It restores my hope in painting generally. It encourages me to think that you have to take that leap, have to believe in your idea. If the idea is good .... And I think most artists (and artist-pretenders) know the difference. If you examine your idea closely and if you are honest with yourself. Yes.

Having done that, if the spark is truly there, go for it.

That's what I get from Bartlett's Rhapsody. And, finally, again it is delightful. Why should art not be delightful? Critics of decoration and delight should click here.