Thank you, Lorraine!

Last time Sharon set a challenge it was a brilliant one and I've kept the work I made in response to it. I'm looking forward to another.

I have looked through the subjects of this challenge many times now, but find nothing there I can say anything about worth reading. However the discussion about Matisse's cut-outs is interesting.
Why should Matisse keep painting even if he could? Why should an old artist not be respected any longer if he gives up oil and canvas, etc.? Until you are old you can not know how your art will change with age. It takes energy to make art.
I adamantly do not think that there is art in everything or that everyone can make art if only they work hard enough at it. Matisse's birds are enjoyed partly because they really are very nice, and because Matisse made them, and Matisse was a fine artist. Picasso made not so admirable pottery and untold numbers of quick sketches, a lot of them only significant because Picasso made them. Like Matisse's birds, Picasso's insignificant work is significant because Picasso was a fine artist. Their 'easy art' is still their art.

Ann all digital art can be made into an object,
Digital art is an extension of normal painting and drawing. It is fragile, as all art is, because it can 'crash' so one has back-ups, but to judge it one uses the normal criteria.
From a practical point of view it is expensive to have digital art transferred to canvas, a good sized canvas cost $300, the downside is there is no texture and the pixillation shows if you increase the size too much.

Re Matisse,anyone who wants to diss the great Henri should see the wonderful cut-outs, as I did in Whitstable Art Gallery. All his art was pointing that way. They were necessary, as all great art is.

I f Iwere rich I would buy some and hang them in my house.I'd have to be rich enough to stop them getting pinched. Of course I could always cut out identical pieces of paper and hang them instead. They would be Henri's art too. Perhaps I should hang them side by side.