there is a depth to Roger Hilton's work, which can only be ascribed to a painter. Those who have no understanding of the creativity in emotive painting will say thing's like "Can you imagine these individuals attempting to gain entry into the art schools of the Rennaissance era!!" and entirely dismiss the works. These are not just pretty pictures which tell a story in the way pre-photography art had to for the average art viewer. Look at art history if you don't understand this work and you might begin to get an iota of the artistry in these paintings.
marvellously talented painter, stunningly beautiful paintings, and an excellent talk by rose. thank you for posting it here. (but the camerawork drove me mad! it never allows you to look at the painting for longer than a second before we're off again on a robotic slow zoom or close-up pan)
A pictorial representation of "The King's New Clothes". Utter Tripe. I've tried to ascribe a modicum of talent to these works but find it repulsive that people can continue to be taken in by such dirge. Can you imagine these individuals attempting to gain entry into the art schools of the Renaissance era!! One would have had to demonstrate a degree of talent at the very least. Ask yourselves this question: Would Da Vinci, Titian or even Monet have conceded any appreciation for what these individuals are trying to conceive?
I am a big fan of Hilton's work but also accept that it is not as accessible as that of some other artists. You have a right to express your views but asking whether previous renowned artists would have appreciated Hilton's work is pointless as neither you, I or anyone else can possibly say. Best to leave that sort of comment out in my opinion.
