All of the reviewers of my book, "The Art of Encaustic Painting," said quite positive things about it and most gave it five stars. Thank you, one and all. However for those two reviewers who described it as "cultish," I'd like you to know how I researched the book:
. I ran a classified ad for two months in Art News asking for "reproduction quality" images of strong encaustic painting.
. I searched the visual data base, maintained by a wax paint manufacturer, of the work of hundreds of artists who work in wax.
. I visited galleries in New York City and elsewhere for at least a decade, taking announcement cards and getting contact information.
. I found very little in the way of representational or figurative work. I did, of course, find some wonderful images, which I included in the book, but percentagewise, the number was small. And it was smaller still because some of the slides were not repro quality or the work did not have the boldness it needed to hold its own in print.
. On this last point--the boldness: By the time you see a work in print, it is many times removed from the original painting. Sublety gets lost, which is why I opted for bold, bright, luminous images.
Since the publication of "The Art of Encaustic Painting," I have found some wonderful figurative and representational painters. Or, should I say, they have found me. But to imply that I somehow selected images from limited group of artists when in fact I made a wide-ranging search, does a disservice to both the art and to me. The fact is that there ARE more artists working abstractly in encaustic that representationally.
If you work representationally or figuratively, I'd like to see your work. Send me a j-peg at joanne@joannemattera.com.