As I was walking home from the Contra dance last night, (more specifically back to Bernhardt), I looked up. There was a pale birch tree set against a cobalt night sky. I thought to myself, "If someone did a painting of this tree, it would be beautiful." Then I thought to myself, no, it wouldn't be. The background is too dark; too much of the tree is hidden, and the actual composition of the painting would be seen as poor. The ends of the branches had melted into the sky, and the actual outline of the tree was dull.
I guess that is the difference between art and people. Alright, I know, it sounds ridiculous, but bear with me. The reason why I find people so intriguing is because you cannot possibly see everything on the surface. The actual painting of a person hides so much from those who dare not seek to tear away at the canvas; we're three-dimensional in all definitions of the word. In art, what you see it what you get. I'm sure many art critiques would like to put up their dukes if they ever read that statement, but regardless of how real a painting is, it will never be as beautiful as the real elements from which it was inspired. You are more a painting of you will ever offer to the world, no matter who painted it, or how famous it is. I'm sure (or I hope) that the "real" Mona Lisa was more interesting than the painting. Just don't get me started on this painting at the Louvre. (Can anyone say OVERRATED?)
Anyway, that was just a thought that ran through my head last night. I just hope that people think there's more to me than just my portrait.