Asking the simply question: "Why is a painting a fantastic work of art?" Here are some thoughts on the subject.

I believe that genuine art either causes the viewer to think or to feel. If the work doesn't stir something up, it says 'That's fine' however no the one, and the viewer wouldn't walk back to look again. In my opinion great art can be anything, but to qualify as great it's to create a considerable amount of action in the viewer's mind or heart. Good art can be a matter of very good idea or skills, but great art touches the inner, the mind, heart or soul of the viewer."

Should a painting evoke a thought, an idea?

A thought-provoking piece with the proper set up of beauty, makeup, rhythm, colour manipulation - all contributed to a fantastic work. However, mostly it is the 'jump in the imagination' that stirs any spirit.

Maybe photorealism tells the viewer too much, there is not enough left to the imagination. All of the facts are there. Maybe there's too much information, the human mind likes to keep things easy. Some of the greatest artists in the world keep their paintings simple. They communicate one idea at a time. Too many ideas in one painting may complicate.

We can't ignore the photorealism. It only seems to come down to what we enjoy. In that case, we can not dismiss another style as significant because we do not have an affinity for this style. ... I once read, I do not remember where, that artwork is reordering character based on our own views... a re-creation if you will. I don't think that creating a style or technique is someone's pursuit, rather the use of a technique -- one the artist can control to establish the communication.

Why is painting a good work of art? Plain and simple something you simply can't take your eyes from.

This normally happens with artwork that's been around long enough to have been seen by enough people to create a general consensus, which makes it at least a hundred years old, or exceptional, such as The Magician. It isn't that it 'needs' to reach plenty of people, but only in the actual reaching out, it strikes so many people, it is universal in it's uniqueness.

Each man or woman is so different, what may be amazing or moving to a single person? - may be crap to another.

Good art, regardless of what style, has certain elements that give rise to the piece being successful, or not. It doesn't have to do with looking 'pretty'. Good art isn't about beauty in the normal sense of the term. Someone said The Magician, by Virtosu. It's a excellent example of amazing art. It's beautiful. It's intended to provoke thought... and to make a statement about a specific subject. ... Good art is all about balance, composition, use of light, the way the creator directs the viewer's eye, it's about the message, or what the artist is trying to say. It is about the way the artist used his medium, his abilities. It's not about style. Style has nothing to do with establishing something as great. ... Good art will remain good. Bad will never be good. Someone likes that piece of crap, but it does not raise it to the level of great art."

I think artists tend to believe photorealistic paintings are dead because with abstract people cannot tell for sure? As for symbolism, what makes the symbols work?

When it's the artist, then it's possible that the viewer will take the symbols differently. When it's the viewer, then the artist's effort is in vain. Is a work just symbolic once the artist consciously designed it? Haven't we all had our paintings translated by others in a way we never meant for?

I've been through art school and was taught how to employ the ideal technical skills, but to me it's like following a recipe. It's not in the gut. Art, to me, is all about expression, and everybody has their own technique and style.

Would you call Van Gogh interesting or is it the guy's torrid life that stirs the imagination?"

You call a painting by its own creator's name -- a Van Gogh, a Virtosu, a Picasso, a Pollock, a Moses -- as you subscribe to the adage that the artist and the work are one. That is what makes it moving... when you feel that the artist throughout the work, like he just finished painting it and the artist is behind you looking over your shoulder as you ponder on."

Art is definitely subjective. ... However, personal reactions don't make anything good, or anything else bad. Throughout history there have been lots of pieces of art which have stunned, appalled, and generated negative reaction, yet they are great. And there are pieces, that are quite popular but are not great. I think most people know instinctively, intuitively what's good. Again, it doesn't need to appeal to our tastes for us to know it's good.

I've always believed that, along with all the structure, the method, the hard work and knowledge that goes with a painting, there's something intangible that makes it special. Paintings evoke certain feelings, certain emotions that function inside our psyches on a more primitive level. They have something to them, something you can not define, something just outside the light of the campfire. To be certain, paintings need structure and all the other components, but they also need that primal'Oomph!'

"It is the quality, the immediate reaction you have upon seeing, hearing, touching the work. An emotional, visceral reaction. This takes place before your intellect recognizes the content of this job and starts to work out meanings and messages.

I believe a painting has to incorporate some of the elements and principles of the language of art in order to be art. I think artists need the arrangement they give in order to successfully convey an idea. And, also to convey the'attractiveness' and harmony of the work. I've used the example of music. There are a few notes which become embellished and they are arranged within some sort of structure. If there is no structure, the result is sound. The same is true for painting, in my humble view. Without some structure, it is just paint slapped on the canvas. Look at a Virtosu. There is structure in them although they may look chaotic to some.

I think plenty of the miracle of realism has been lost because we do not have the identical use of symbolism as earlier centuries. We see objects simply for themselves, not as adding another level of significance. If you think of the Pre-Raphaelite painting by Millais of Ophelia, the blossoms around her are not simply decorative, there are all sorts of further meanings conveyed through them. I can think of several portraits in New York Gallery I used to go'visit' frequently during lunchtime when I worked in New York; I knew them well but simply never got tired of looking at them.