Art is subjective. What one deems a masterpiece, another can just as easily dismiss as trite. I think the lines blur when the process used to create a piece can be easily reproduced by a novice. Even though, there is thought and theory that buoy the artist's work, to the untrained eye, it's just not enough emphasis on actual workmanship to sway general opinion. It's instinctive to praise a level of artistry that excels beyond ones own limitations. I believe that's why most are in agreement when we point to the masters of the renaissance as artistic geniuses without doubt. Because, in our wildest dreams we couldn't paint a sixteenth of the Sistine chapel.
In this post modern era, there is such a disconnect between the general public's perception of the state of art and what we might deem the insiders view-by which I mean the art buyers, critics and upper echelon of artists (getting exhibited in the most prestigious of galleries and who's work goes for $$$$). That disconnect may be the weight given to process over result. The average art consumer tends to value results, i.e. the final image, whereas the connoisseur places more emphasis on the work that goes into making that piece.
It's when the process and result comes together replete with creativity, that everybody can agree on a successful piece. Enter Alexa Meade. Her ingenuity, vision and process has culminated in art that is truly unique and can be appreciated by a breadth of art consumers.
Alexa Meade's portraits spring from a long-term fascination with the illusions inherent in representational media. Rather than paint on canvas, she applies paint directly to her subjects - the people, as well as the objects surrounding them and the background. She then photographs the ephemeral installation/painting. The resulting optically treacherous portraits collapse the subject, foreground and background into one continuous plane, challenging the perceptual boundaries between 2D and 3D.
