"What I look at is not your concern, CK. But FYI, Remington and Charles Russell are preferred, but I feel just fine looking at reality, in person. If you spent more time out in the country, you would feel less comfortable with trash depicting a psychotic episodes.

pdq: I didn't mean to be insulting. Strike the last two sentences of my post; they are flippant. But I'm serious underneath; if you don't like it, look at what you do like. That's the way I deal with Thomas Kinkaide.

The thing is, when you said "A close-up photo of a pile of vomit on a barrom floor say more about "the human condition" than this painting does! " it struck a nerve. I have a bias against critics. The more common version is "My five-year-old can do better than that."

If you don't like it as well as a vomit photo, good enough, but that's an opinion & not necessarily true for everyone.

And about spending time out in the country; I've spent most of my life in - or near - North Idaho and it just doesn't get very urban here. I didn't go to school when I was six because we lived too far away -- on Smith Creek up close to the Canadian line and next to the mountains. We lived with my grandparents, who still farmed with horses then.

Matter of fact, Remington and Russell are two of my favorites. Charlie Russell doesn't draw as accurately, but I like his work better. I think he has more feeling, knows what it's about more. But they're not the whole of art, or of life.

And the kind of psychotic trash I'm comfortable with is not your concern, either, if I may be a bit irritable here. Although it's ok if you're interested and want to talk about it.

clint