There is a definite balance between having details that seems extraneous, versus having details that are conspicuously absent.
In the Art Renewal Center 2005 Salon Competition, I found myself in disagreement with the chosen winner in the figurative category. The painting Ryan, which won first place, shows a boy standing in front of what appears to be a painted backdrop representing a bookcase filled with various bric-a-brac. To my eye, the background does not particularly match the subject in front. I'm not quite sure what about the background seems 'off'--the lighting and perspective seem consistent with what they should be, and yet the background looks more like a flat tapestry than a bookcase. What's your take?
Also, how do you like the third-place winner? That one I really do like.
I don't know if I mind that the background in "Ryan" occupies such a flat space, which I agree that it does. I do find the thing to be a little gimmicky...I feel like all the bric a brac has been put in to show off the artist's virtuosity. Also, I suppose the painting may be highly allegorical, between the selection of objects and the fact that the kid is standing on a gold ball. It's all beautifully painted, and I'm in awe of it, but it's not straightforward I don't think...I tend not to like art quite as well when you need a printed essay to understand it.
I'm with you in liking the third place painting the best.
ARC is a wonderful resource, isn't it?