Though I know the cactus plant is too rigid to dance, this one in my painting seems to be dancing, at least to me. I love bright colours and I adore this neon-light green of the cactus and the lovely blue of the pot. I finished painting it this evening, hence I had to click it indoors.. that's why the warm yellow tones are muted in the leaves. I thought I'd have a tough time with the perspective drawing of the blue pot - and I did, a little - but it came right on the second try. But, I do need to practice on these linear perspectives. I've never had a problem with atmospheric perspective, though many in my painting workshop seem to find that difficult. Neither do I have any problem about creating 3-D effects, such as of the leaf, for example its vein. One of the enduring joys and fascinations of painting is creating 3-D effects on a 2-D surface, just using various tones of colours. I think this is one of the reasons people continue to be captivated by realistic art, despite the advent and popularity of various schools of abstract art. And though I really love doing abstract art - the freedom it offers is immensely joyous for my free spirit - but the kind of deep sense of satisfaction I get out of creating a 3-D object on a 2-D surface is really hard to beat.
Oh, and did I tell you.. acrylic rocks! :D
About the movie Wolf of Wall Street:
I'm still recovering from the horrible experience of watching Leonardo Di Caprio - an actor whom I've come to expect so much of - descend into mindlessness. Yes, I understand money is important, but if one with the sensitivity and caliblre of Di Caprio, has to debase himself, and his art form, to do that, then I feel there's no hope left for good, thinking cinema. We will be stuck with such emptiness as Wolf of Wall Street proved to be. What I mean by "good, thinking cinema" is not anything about cinema having to carry a message, or be pontifical. What I am referring to is intellectual honesty - cinema, any art form - should have that basic intellectual honesty, I strongly feel. Scorcese's degeneration into this crudity, and classifying it as comedy - which these so-called reviewers are blindly endorsing - is the lowest form of cinema. It's worse than the out and out commercial cinema we are constantly assaulted with, because at least they don't pretend to be anything else than what they are - out to make money, using whatever has proved to be the most popular in terms of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Actually, come to think of it, all cinema, all art forms, do carry a message, even if willy-nilly. Wolf of Wall Street's message is: I do not give a damn about intellectual dishonesty as long as it sells. And it will sell because there are mediocre empty heads, who call thmeselves reviewers and critics or "Gurujis" (by their chelas), who will endorse it, because I, Scorcese, who is regarded as a cinema genius, have made it. And these mediocrities dare not say otherwise, even if they have the brains to figure it out.
Actually, it seems as if these critics/reviewers either don't understand cinema - art - at all, or it's a case of "Emperor's New Clothes" - after all it's Scorcese, you know. And nobody wants anybody to think they don't get it, which could be the charge if they did criticise it.
