Health warning: this post contains strong opinions.
Why does Kim Weston do photographic versions of paintings? Late in life when he had ran out of creative steam, Picasso did his own versions -interpretations - of great paintings by Velasquez. They weren't nearly as good as the originals. And judging from the above link, Kim Weston's photographs aren't as good as the paintings he is interpreting. Not that I think Balthus is anything to write home about as an artist. I have always thought his work was rather tacky and verging on bad taste. Kim Weston's versions of Balthus' work have the same qualities, in my opinion.
Christina's World is Andrew Wyeth's most famous painting, though by no means his best, in my opinion. But it's a whole lot better than Kim Weston's interpretation of it, which looks unsatisfactory and quite ordinary to me.
Kim Weston says he has no hang-ups about having Edward Weston as a grandfather. Pity he doesn't have some of his grandfather's talent.
(I'm having a bad day. Does it show?)
Alan
