2015 02 14 09.17.46 

Editor: Right, so next up we have "2015 02 14 09.17.46" by Jimmy Ortiz. It looks like it’s acrylic paint and ink. It strikes me as a sort of chaotic landscape... or maybe the suggestion of one? It feels unresolved somehow. What do you see in this piece? Curator: Oh, "unresolved," I love that. It's as if the painting itself is in mid-thought. Notice how the vibrant blues and reds collide, almost like a primal scream across the canvas? It feels incredibly raw, visceral even. Do you get a sense of Fauvist influence? Editor: A little, now that you mention the bold colours! But is it just me, or is there also a sense of, dare I say, graffiti art at play, in the seemingly spontaneous, almost reckless application of the ink? Curator: Yes! It’s almost as if the painting is channeling some rogue street artist from an alternate dimension, using the canvas as their clandestine wall. I mean, it almost laughs in the face of the idea that painting has to be… orderly. Have to use brushes. I can almost feel Jimmy Ortiz gleefully breaking rules, throwing paint, and inviting us along for the ride. It asks me, "What is abstraction really ABOUT?". What does it stir in you? Editor: I suppose it reminds me that art can be pure feeling, unfiltered and immediate. Less about representation, more about… presentation of emotion, maybe? Curator: Exactly! You nailed it. Think of Rothko’s color fields or even Pollock’s drip paintings, but with an almost… punk rock attitude. Which just proves, yet again, that art is never quite what we expect, is it? Editor: Definitely not! I thought I was seeing a messy landscape, but now I think I was seeing something that could break into song if it wanted. Thanks for opening my eyes a bit wider to it!