Sportive Thoughts

Recently, I was browsing a Chicago art gallery with my girlfriend. The paintings were quite good, except for the fact that they were acrylic and not oil based, and had I several thousand dollars worth of disposable income (I don't) I would have purchased Kathleen Patrick's "Magnificent Mile".

As we perused further into the gallery, we saw the artist talking with two potential buyers. There were many manifestations of the Chicago skyline sitting around, and the clients were studying intently a piece not unlike the one below.

I eavesdropped on their conversation, expecting some interesting discussion of Patrick's expressionist interpretation of the Chicago skyline, albeit diminished in the second image you see here.

But what was the discussion? "I still think it could use more windows." I was incredulous. Here was a couple with the funds to buy a masterful painting, and they wanted to ruin it by putting in more windows and fixing the colors to match their apartment walls! I don't have many words for the buyers' impertinence, only disgust.

Please comment an tell me which of the two paintings you think is superior and why. Clearly, to me, the way the colors and shapes of "Magnificent Mile" blend together is much more emotionally engaging than the sterile segregations that "Chicago City View" offers. "Magnificent Mile" unifies the city and encourages knowledge of Chicago to distinguish between the many forms, whereas "Chicago City View" simply leaves the city structured around this empty unidentified gap--is it a park or Lake Michigan, or is the emptiness in the middle of the painting the lack of taste that would leave a buyer wishing for "more windows" in the menacing pile of buildings?