Transformative Painter

Today I thought about the painter as a transformer of reality. Someone who paints pictures, yet creates a new reality or someone who describes very well the reality they see. At first, I believe that both can exist, and a true artist combines both, as their own notion of describing reality implies the knowledge to invent new realities (i.e., an artist is only truly an artist when they master the art of creation, when it is versatile) and enough to be a pretender. We cannot give credit to an abstractionist who merely lives from the random movements of their muscles. This is because they do not present consistency from one painting to another, and cannot be characterized as a thing or object of art.

However, if their muscles exhibit aesthetic consistency, then we may have an artist. Perhaps not an intellectual, but a master of beauty (just as a beautiful woman is unquestionably beautiful). Similarly, intellectual mastery of muscle is not sufficient for classifying a work of art. Uniqueness, pioneering spirit, and appeal are obvious characteristics. Mastery of technique alone is not enough. It requires mastery of various techniques as an artistic proof of the intention behind the creation… everything else is fate!