Art History: The Fall of Babylon – Eat the Rich (circa. 539 BCE)

Belshazzar's Feast, John Martin, 1820

John Martin’s "Belshazzar's Feast" masterfully captures the moment the wealthiest city of the ancient world, Babylon, faces divine punishment for its greed and sacrilege. The grand banquet hall radiates opulence, with towering columns, golden vessels, and intricate carvings symbolizing Babylon’s vast wealth and arrogance. King Belshazzar and his court revel in excess, drinking from sacred vessels looted from the Temple of Jerusalem, an act of ultimate defiance and theft.

Martin’s groundbreaking use of perspective and architectural detail creates a sense of truly overwhelming scale. His connection to humanity made his storytelling legendary. This level of technical precision and ambition was far ahead of its time, bridging the gap between Romanticism and timeless storytelling. The oppressive shadows and swirling apocalyptic skies amplify the tension, forewarning the destruction of the mightiest empire. The painting stands as both a cautionary tale of greed and a testament to Martin’s visionary genius, immortalizing the fall of Babylon as a moment of divine reckoning.

Belshazzar's Feast

Oil on canvas

John Martin,1820

158 x 232 cm (62 x 91 in)

The Pursuit of Perfection in a Rapid World

In today’s fast-paced art market, it’s easy to feel pressure to produce more, faster. We celebrate prolific artists like Renoir or Monet, whose thousands of works filled the art world with impressionistic light and movement. Yet, when I reflect on the masterpieces of William-Adolphe Bouguereau (meticulously crafted and full of emotion) I find myself drawn to a different path.

Bouguereau created fewer than 800 works in his lifetime, but each one was a testament to precision, discipline, and an unwavering commitment to classical academic principles. He painted with the intention of capturing perfection, not just in form but in spirit. This meticulous process came with a cost: fewer sales, less public interest in his time, and, as history records, a fleeting fame as art trends shifted.

As an artist, I’ve come to terms with a similar fate. I am not drawn to quick strokes or fleeting impressions. I am committed to creating works that reflect the same devotion to academic realism that guided Renaissance masters and painters like Bouguereau. In a world where art has increasingly detached itself from reality, where abstraction and conceptualism dominate the stage, I find myself steadfast in my belief that beauty and realism matter.

This doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate innovation or modern movements. But for me, art is a dialogue with humanity that transcends trends. Each painting I create takes weeks or even months, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. Like Bouguereau, I will trade quantity for quality, fleeting recognition for enduring craftsmanship.

I know this means I may never have the fame of artists who create in styles more aligned with contemporary tastes. That’s okay. My goal is not to be prolific but to be profound. If, at the end of my life, I leave behind 800 masterpieces that endure beyond me, I will have succeeded.

Art, to me, isn’t about speed or popularity. It’s about creating something timeless, something that speaks to the soul of a viewer centuries after I am gone. Even if it’s just a whisper in a crowded room, that whisper will carry the weight of every detail I’ve labored over.

This is the fate I’ve accepted, not as a burden, but as a calling.

The opposite of my style

Non-objective art is a form of abstract art that doesn’t depict anything recognizable from reality (no objects, people, or scenes we can connect with). It hides behind intellectual jargon, claiming to explore ideas through shapes, colors, and lines which inherently lacks depth, emotion, or any other true meaning. For me, art should resonate with the viewer, telling a story or provoking thought, but non-objective art misses that mark. Instead of inviting us into a shared human experience, it becomes a confusing puzzle of meaningless forms. I understand that the "art" in these works is the creation of the art itself. I get it. I just don't enjoy it is all.

Now, don’t confuse this style with abstract art. Not all abstract art lacks subject matter. While styles like abstract minimalism simplify forms, they still retain a recognizable subject at its core. The difference? Minimalism reduces reality to its essential elements, while non-objective art completely ignores reality altogether, offering no connection to anything beyond itself.

Here is some famous non-objective art

"Composition VIII" by Wassily Kandinsky (1923) - $41,000,000

“Suprematist Composition" by Kazimir Malevich (1916) - $60,000,000

"No. 6 (Violet, Green and Red)" by Mark Rothko (1951) - $186,000,000