My apologies for going missing. I managed to throw my back out (reaching for a tube of Burnt Sienna - it is always the stupid things!) and I have been flat on my back for the past few days.

I like your comment that "painting is as dead as you want it to be or as alive as you want it to be."

I will tell you a story. It might make you laugh or it might make you cry.

About four years ago myself and few friends were gathered at the local watering hole and it is probably fair to say that we were well watered by the end of the evening. We had spent the evening surveying the "state of the Art" and came to the conclusion that the real tragedy was that fine art is, generally speaking, non-portable. What good is it if the finest painting ever created is on display in a museum in Buenos Aires? What good is it if the finest painting ever created is in storage in a museum in Cape Town? Sure, there will be photographs or even postcards or prints of the work but what is that compared to the experience of actually standing before the original?

But what if the photograph was the original, I argued? What if the painting is just a stage in the creation of an original photograph? Then it (the photograph) could be reproduced at will without any loss of fidelity. You could hold your next exhibition in a book. It could be available to all through purchase of the book and for considerably less than the purchase price of just one painting. And if purchasing the book is a problem, you could always get it out of your local library. After all, is this not already the way that most people view fine art? The important thing is to view the book as an original work of art. To do this it becomes necessary to physically destroy the painting. Think about it, I slurred, you paint the painting, you photograph the painting and then you destroy the painting so that all that is left is the photograph. It is anti-museum, anti-gallery, anti-dealer and (somewhat perversely) pro-painting despite the fact that the painting is destroyed. It is pro-painting because the painting/photograph has the ability to reach a wider audience. Before long a new movement was born - Fugitive Art (c) abvg 1998.

This is why I am known locally as the fugitive artist.

The point is that all art is fugitive. It only really exists as a photograph. How much original art do you really have the chance to stand before? Compare that to the original art that exists in the world. Compare it to the original art that is newly produced every day. Paul Klee left over 30,000 drawings and paintings. How many have you seen in the original? Our knowledge of the old masters comes to us (in the main) from photographs in art books.

Fugitive Art , it is the past - it is the future.

Think on that and be dismayed!