If the image comes through, it is from a 10'x10' canvas, one hundred square feet:



John's hairstyle may make him look a bit spinsterish, but he paints like a man!

Available October 2009, his new book, BEAST, (his first collection of images) is a beast of a book with 264 pages of 11" x 14" format.
Excellent quality reproductions in those pages.

I found one for $69.95 at B&N, the "Gallery Edition."
There is also a $3,200.00 "Collector's Edition" of the book,
and a $175.00 "Signature Edition."

Order those here:
http://www.johnbanovich.com

... or get one autographed at the DSC and SCI shows.

DRG says: "Kiss my liberal grits!"

Great detail!!

With 100 square feet of painted canvas, he could have put in more detail than he did ,,, but then he could also still be working on it through next year ...

DRG says: "Kiss my liberal grits!"

First off Thanks to Saeed for the new forum.
Thanks to RIP for posting such a fantastic work of Art from a very talented artist.
As for having more detail in the painting I think personally it would detract from the emotion the artist is trying to convey and bring out in the viewer. I think a good work of art should bring an emotional response from the viewer, whether good or bad. The Kuhnert in the other thread is a great example. It created such a strong response from the previous owners that they painted over or hid from display the parts that made the painting great and not just another illustration of a Lion. I think Banovich accomplishes this with out a great deal of detail in the background. When you first see the image you are drawn right to the ele coming at you, that is what is this painting is about. The lack of detail lets the viewer inject his own interpretation and imagination into the work. Every viewer will see and feel something different. I think that is part of what makes this such a strong piece. The Kuhnert on the other hand is telling a more specific story or moment in time. You know more of what happened in this piece, but his painting the Lion after the deed of killing and consuming the mailman still lets the viewer inject his own version of what happened earlier into the piece.
The Banovich IMHO is a museum quality piece. I have not seen his total body of work, but if this is not one of his best I'd like to see the rest.
Personally I prefer the looser or more impressionistic style of painting like the Kuhnert.

Gary,
I agree completely.
Carl Rungius and Bob Kuhn come to mind, and Fred Machetanz, as some of the bold and more impressionistic, painterly styles I like.
I get tired really quickly of the highly detailed foreground-filling animal with a mere blurry background, so like a photograph.
This looks like the artist merely copied a photograph.
Hey! Ought to at least add a wash of dust to the foreground if passing off photograph-copying as art!
Like, put some vaseline on the lens next time, so it is not so obvious.
Photographic art can be wonderful ,,, when it is presented as a photograph.

Kuhnert's bold brush strokes: Yes!
"Grant's Gazelle Looking This Way" (Wilhelm Kuhnert)

"Lion" (Wilhelm Kuhnert) At the zoo?

Maybe the above lion was a study in preparation for "The Man Eater":


Banovich had to shed 40 pounds of muscle from his power-lifting days, and grow a hippie hair-doo to make him more socially-eco-wienie friendly, for greater commercial appeal to a broader market. Greater sales, you know.

However, was that "Dangerous Game" or "Tracks Across Africa" that aired is Non-PETA behavior?

DRG says: "Kiss my liberal grits!"