In his 1891 essay, "The Critic As Artist", Oscar Wilde observed, “An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all."

Wilde wasn't trying to agitate a revolution;  he wanted readers to squirm—to imagine doing something far outside the boundaries of their normal, safe comfort zone.  That, he believed, is where the best art is produced.

Wildlife Art Journal magazine subscribes to the same theorem—that if stories aren't eliciting a response, or forcing you to feel something, then what's the point?  We don't want to contribute to the plague of social narcolepsy.

Several months ago when Wildlife Art Journal published Ron Kingswood's original essay, "Is Animal Painting Dead?", the response was immediate.  Emails poured in;  the telephone rang.  Many were energized;  others were angry.  Again, Kingswood's piece incited readers to respond, and what could be more entertaining than having some of the best-known names in naturalistic art weighing in?  One response that traveled around the world was Robert Bateman's original essay, "The State of Wildlife Art" that also ran exclusively here.

In this issue of WAJ, we direct you to Andrew Denman's commentary Wildlife Art On The Couch:  A Struggle For Identity In The 21st Century.  We also encourage you to read carver Tony Angell's answer to the Bateman piece which flew under the radar of some readers who apprently don't read the comment section of this online magazine.  You need to and we want you to hold forth.  It is found at the bottom of each story. 

One thing we believe:  If an art magazine is putting you to sleep, instead of waking you up, then it's not doing its job.