What is interesting about one of the greatest portrait artists in the galaxy and a lecture about him is the fact that maybe the hallmarks of a master are just not good enough to let people know it is the “real thing”. What is interesting about siphoning off the parts of a master’s craft in an attempt to make sure it really was legitimate and are the things that would let consensus deem it being incapable of being forged is that obviously the vale of technicality or the tools that provide the stroke of creation in which the an artist works, they are paper thin. Is the question of the Internet, its imperialism and how it has changed art actually somehow letting us know that maybe this grandiose idea that art can be measured solely by it’s voice and impact and other tidbits, that that hour of real measure will soon be at hand? NO! ...well, we don’t know. What you think about Uncle Vania and what you end up knowing about Uncle Vania become the same terrifying thing - all things that are to be known about Vania are present in each and every chilling thing he does. The staggering quality of how much you can understand about something - a culture, person, the world - by merely being able to observe the man’s work is almost as astounding as it is perceiving how much can be risked in 21st century art, of which is for now being composed for the rest of history’s inhabitants to be chilled by.
underground art magazine