Its the Light

How many of us enjoy paintings any more, we of the video age. There are starving artists, there are famous painters and paintings, yet in all probability it is the artist themselves that are more famous than their paintings. Rembrant. Picasso. Names more famous than their paintings (give or take a few Da Vinci's). But why, wasn't painting all about what was painted? Why do we dwell more on the reputation and fame of the artist? In a sense, the internet age has remedied this in a fashion, for we all can self publish at least our photographs and the focus will be back on the subject rendered, not ourselves. Photography, which basically replaced painting, at last has achieved a kind of parity where we all are on an equal playing field. But is it really about the object? Or is it about something even more elemental. Isn't it about the LIGHT? My planetarium will be an oxymoron almost - I will shut out 99.99 percent of the worlds light, so I can appreciate the other .01 percent - starlight. Cutting off light to appreciate light. Light was the basis for painting. It really is the basis for photography. If we are honest, we perhaps should forget the objects rendered in photography and painting, we should definitely forget the reputation of 'famous' purveyors of these arts (or crafts), and we should concentrate on what drives it all. Its the light.