I never liked this modern art stuff, with wiggly lines, distorted faces, geometrical shapes ...

>But it's pretty popular, ain't it?
Yes, I guess, though I don't know why. I sometimes think that kids should go into the business of painting "modern art".
They just need a collection of brushes, some rope to drag paint across the canvas, a spray can full of paint.
For example, this painting by American artist Jackson Pollock sold for $140M. Can you believe that?

>I assume you never paint "modern", right?
Right, though I've been thinking that I'd respect an artist who could paint realistically, true-to-life.
The most famous painter of the twentieth century was Pablo Picasso. Many of his "later" paintings looked like this

An early Picasso
But he was a fabulously talented painter (in my humble opinion).
I base that upon his earlier works.

Now imagine a Picasso painting that combined his earlier "realistic" work with his later "nonsensical" stuff.
I think it'd be fantastic to gaze upon, don't you?

>I can't even imagine such an animal.

I call this combination of old and new FusionART.

>FusionART? That's a pretty uninspired name. Why not shorten it to ...what?
Great idea! How about F:ART?

>So have you tried this FusionART stuff?
I hate to admit it, but yes, I have.

Picasso F:ART
>Wait a minute! That "Next Project" above, it don't look like a real painting. I mean, those diddles.
Uh ... you're right. I cheat a little. I first play with a photo of the painting, using a paint program.

>You PhotoShop it.
Well, yes. When I get something respectable, I try to reproduce it with the actual painting, using real paint.

>Define respectable.
Puma on the Rocks is my next project ... then I hang it on the wall.
In fact, I diddled another painting of a (wooden) carousel horse (which I didn't like):

If Picasso can do it ...