a better/another reproduction

I included IMO
I don't need to get a grip ..you wanted discussion I added to it.
To me, it's not all that brilliant. Its an idea put to canvas. An idea we all have at some point. He seemed to have used this a lot in his paintings. It's not new, really ..just put on canvas by a great painter. They -for the most part- either seem easy or there isn't anything TO understand
A lot seem to get their greatness by the viewers bowling themselves over with artsy-farsty intellectualism trying to understand them
Sick. Disturbing. What else can it be? Most all of his works are disturbing. His greatness comes from his ability to disturb you, if you ask me. Either by disturbing your senses or disturbing you into finding what isn't really there ..all the same. If you caught a fish that once landed started to sing Elvis tunes what would you think? Disturbing? Easy to understand what would motivate a person to paint that, though.
So easy the viewer would probably delve deep into Elvis life to try and find new ways of associating the fish to Elvis so that he can seem smarter than everyone else/secure a job.
His works are little thoughts on canvas that force you into thinking about your own little thoughts ..asking you to believe in them as much as you would be inclined to believe in a great painters ..his. IMO

A large %age of paintings took/take years and required/ great thought. ? It takes time to paint ..and condense all that thought into a pretty simple painting that when viewed for a short time is understandable
Any painting that requires years of study has a fool for a student
If "you" write a pages long critique I truly think you're just giving yourself pats on the ass for thinking of everything you're writing
It's nearly instantaneous your response to works of art. Who is that person writing for?
IMO that writer is himself an artist.