Mark Elliott  Southbury, CT

"I really like pop surrealism. Most of the really prominent artists in the movement are quite gifted/technically very talented, and the imaginary dreamscapes/compositions are (often) quite magical. @Skeurto....It is pretty silly to be comparing this particular artist to Picasso. It is like comparing Megadeath to Buxtehude, or Bach to Jay-Z, completely different genres/styles. Also, if really want to talk about someone with technical flawlessness, did you really have to pick Picasso? Don't get me wrong, his very early paintings/sketches are technically pretty good (i.e. portrait of his mother), but if you want to compare/contrast, they are no Bouguereau, or Hals, or Titian, or Van Dyck, or Rembrandt, etc. They are what would be expected of a good (not great) student at an atelier. Had Picasso continued in realism, with time and practice, his skills would have, likely, grown even more but he opted to go the cubist route. @Ron, why does there have to be a message? Why can't you just enjoy the image/artist's skill. For much of art history, the purpose of art has been decorative. Abstract expressionism is really where this whole "what is the artist trying to say" became the it question, in large part to detract from the reality of how, in fact, crappy the work was. People had to find some meaning to validate the work of art because on its own, technically, the work was poop. I am not saying that every painting has to be like a Titian or Bouguereau, but I hate the "what is the artist trying to say" lingo that comes with much of contemporary art, not just the abstract kind. High brow, self professed uber intellectuals, trying to read some meaning into a work. Andy Warhol is a perfect example of this. The art establishment tried to read meaning into his coup cans, a commentary on consumerism, etc. Well, out of the horses (Andy's mouth) there was not greater meaning. He had a painter's block one of his friend's suggested that he paint Campbell soup cans, he did, they started selling, so he made more. End of story."

"Should we really look down our noses at an artist's work or at those who are trying to communicate why they like it? It is difficult to put into words what moves us. I commend those who try.Besides, most artists I know would prefer not to display their work for others because criticism wilts their creativity and removes the joy from what they do..."

"que puedo decir.... simplemente bello, el arte es un don maravilloso que Dios los a dado, yo amo el arte en todas sus presentaciones, es algo que me abría gustado hacer, muchas felicitaciones sigan deleitando nos y gracias por tanta belleza"

"Okay, everyone, this guy is a decent artist, but he certainly is not Picasso nor is he more talented (Picasso's earlier work was astounding technically; especially his drawings). While I don't doubt that the artist has vivid dreams that he wants to paint, I do see his influences as far as even in the title of "The Gloaming" which is a Radiohead song and it is obvious that he does not know what gloaming itself means; the title of the work has nothing to do with the subject matter in itself. He should have simply kept it untitled as opposed to contriving what he thinks to be a smart title. Furthermore, the artist needs to work more on his figures because they're somewhat off and it is not intentional.It's good work, not great work."

"The first one makes me think of a girl who feels out of place, strange, alien. The second makes me think about the odd sparks that music can make in our imaginations."

"truly lovely. just wonderful!"

"I can appreciate dream representation. On the other hand, flying saucers and large-winged bugs detract from the quality of the work for me. Nicely crafted, though."

"Nicely executed but boring. This is like someone who speaks perfectly but has very liitle to say. The sentimental aspects are quickly exhausted for interest."

"Wow. Absolutely beautiful! So creative and whimsical! :)"

"Technically quite good, but, what's the message? So is it art?"