Some may never and that is ok. But what is the point of calling an art form dead or tired?. Had a party here last night, around 30 or so. The mostly 20 somethings were freaking at a few of my paintings. One young friend of a guest said she was going to art school and they wanted to paint. " i am soo jelouse of your paintings they are soo hot..." Another went on about the various anotomical parts and how they moved her sexually, she was pretty drunk. The next morning, she had passed out and stayed the night, she pointed out the most expressionistic figurative work and said it had some special urgency about it. That was cool, it was done that way. So how can you really tell about any art and the form unless you meet the artist and the work at the same time to get something of its meaning beyond the form the creative act uses as its foil for the artist's mind? Sure the gallery or institution gives you something of the situation and conditions. Does it matter what form it is when the work is tuned in like this at some point in some intelligent manner? Saying some art form is dead is missing the point and somewhat of a superficial approch to cultural objects and their meanings.

I think any art has an immediacy in execution and another at its discovery at any time. I think it is like posting thoughts here where emotional neuances are immediate and telling. A show of art work of any kind has an element of creative climax at the showing of the work, at the official opening or in the studio or at someone's house or online. It is nice to be there with the work and the reception of it. Like a ritual happening with the artist present physically or alternatively, by the signature ( or any data info) on whatever it is that may reveal something of the author and their time. So what if the product delivering the message is outta vogue as long as someone gets the message(s). I also belive anything still goes. So what if technology has some predominant facination. What's the message?

Terrence Kosick

artist - Vancouver, CA