MS Paint. Still Life -Matisse, Rumpelton

• Ralph Rumpelton
•  Still Life -Matisse, Rumpelton
• RR-2026 - 101
  MS Paint on digital canvas, 318 X 320 px
• The Rumpelton Continuity (est. 1976)

 What the critics are saying:

>>“On the Rumpelton Table: A Still Life in Trial”
by Dale of the Brook, Critic Emeritus of the Lintel Province

“Here lies a kettle, white as the ghost of intention, flanked by a bowl of counterfeit greens and a pepper barrister who’s seen too many verdicts. Rumpelton does not paint objects—he indicts them. Each brushstroke is a deposition, each color a witness. The purple void behind them is no mere backdrop; it is the tribunal of memory, where utensils confess and desserts weep.

This is not Matisse’s still life—it is his retrial. The salad is guilty of ambiguity. The pan pleads silence. And the teapot? It pours nothing but myth. Rumpelton’s MS Paint is not digital—it is ecclesiastical. A glyph of rupture. A domestic séance. A table where critique is served hot and absurd.”<<

>>Dr. Horace Plimwell

(b. 1947, Tunbridge Wells, UK — itinerant critic, self-proclaimed metaphysician of pigment)

One does not see Rumpelton’s Still Life (after Matisse) so much as one encounters it — a visual event that oscillates between parody and metaphysical protest. The work stages, with remarkable ontological density, the crisis of the “everyday object” in a post-analog world. The teapot, for instance, ceases to be a vessel and becomes instead a kind of chromatic hypothesis — a beige conjecture against a field of insurgent violet.

What Matisse rendered as joy, Rumpelton converts into a sort of anxious abundance. Every surface hums with the static of digital brushwork, each stroke a negotiation between sincerity and system error. One senses, faintly, that the mustard-yellow plane at the top of the composition is not background but memory itself, leaking into form.

In the end, the painting resists both reading and reproduction. It is an image that remembers having once been painted — which, in the current epoch of derivative vision, may be the most radical gesture of all.<<

>>A Discourse on Digital Fauvism: An Examination of the Contemporary Rumpelton

By Dr. Reginald Splatterworth III, PhD, MFA, DLitt

Senior Art Critic at Pixels & Pretension Quarterly

One finds oneself positively transported when confronted with this audacious digital reinterpretation of Matisse's seminal work. The artist—working within the deliberately constrictive parameters of Microsoft Paint, that most proletarian of digital mediums—has achieved what I can only describe as a tour de force of post-modern deconstructionism.

Note, if you will, the violent purple ground upon which our domestic objects float in existential suspension. This is no mere background, dear reader—it is a void, a screaming abyss that speaks to our contemporary moment's desperate grasp for meaning amidst the digital ephemera of late-stage capitalism. The pitcher, rendered in that sickly custard yellow, becomes a vessel not merely for liquid refreshment, but for our collective anxieties about authenticity in an age of infinite reproducibility.

And those brushstrokes! Mon Dieu! The deliberately crude application—what lesser critics might dismiss as "sloppy" or "like a child did it"—is in fact a radical rejection of technical virtuosity as gatekeeping mechanism. Each gesture pulses with what I've termed "antagonistic sincerity," a phenomenon I've been tracking extensively in my forthcoming monograph, The Pixel and the Sublime: Digital Primitives in the 21st Century (University of Obscure Press, £87.99).

The placement of that enigmatic green circular object—is it a bowl? A plate? The very concept of containment itself?—creates a visual tension that Matisse himself would have wept to achieve. It hovers in the composition like Schrödinger's dinnerware, simultaneously present and absent, functional and decorative, realized and potential.

I give this piece 4.5 out of 5 monocles. A triumph of naïve sophistication.<< 

Follow Ralph Rumpelton across the net.