This "art" has almost zero merit. It is obviously copied from photographs, which is the equivalent of using a light box or pantograph. ANYbody can copy a photograph if they are patient enough, because it does your work for you (reducing 3 dimensions to 2 dimensions - but it does it in a different way from an artist's hand, which is why it is so obvious.) And all he's done is use very flat areas of paint to copy the shadows in the photographs; where it was too detailed to copy, he's just left out the detail.
The ONLY reason this guy got any gallery time was because of his radical leanings. Murderers in prison who take up some artistic hobby or other are a dime a dozen - they tend to be numerous because they stay there for a LONG time - he's doubtless a cause celebre amongst some of the loony left, he could have thrown paint against the wall with a plastic bag and they would be swooning about the "deep meaning" and what not.
I disagree strongly. The little black boy for example, shows a unique and artistic perception of depth and shadow that did not come from a photograph. However, this is the point where we should both adults and admit that art truly is in the eye of the beholder. Some people didn't get Dahli or Picaso
Art is in the eyes of the beholder.,and I cannot argue whether Manning copied from photographs etc, that is not the point I am going for as explained beforehand.
I agree, the guy's art sucks. Colors badly conceived, poorly drawn, no understanding of value or edge...the negro boy does manage to evoke some feeling in the viewer IMO, but the distortion is probably not intentional.
I'd say that there may actually be ability present, but it's pretty deeply buried for the moment.
RE, your previous post, lowering the light source to increase contrast makes sense, thank you. I don't know what "contrasty" film is, but have switched to digital, 5 megapix, anyhow. Is there a way to increase contrast with that? I better read the book, there probably is a way.