And also The Wolf That Lives In Lindsey (Mingus, 1979). All of these were left out in deference to the musician, not wishing to embarrass her in any way. And I am not saying "to shock her". Because I am sure, absolutely certain that her independence of mind, her intelligence, the clarity and subtlety of her analyzes and her life course have completely vaccinated her against prudishness, bigotry, hypocrisy and political correctness.

Anyway, what else could one expect from someone who unashamedly conjured up "the bonfire in her spine" that she once felt whenever her lover slipped his legs between hers? (Come in from the Cold, 1991)
Or from a woman who was honest and blunt enough to state that, as interesting and rewarding it could feel to devote one’s life to noble causes and as far as she was concerned, the only thing she cared for was to find a new lover, in those times when the bankruptcy of her love for John Guerin took her vagabonding on the icy highways of Hejira (Song for Sharon, 1976)…

In fact, apart from my wish to not importune Joni Mitchell, it is also the fear of off-topic treatments in my paintings which induced me to delete some of them out of this site’s current selection.
However, That Song About The Midway and Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (1986 version) are still works that I continue to like, because I find those paintings strong - whether they correspond to what Joni Mitchell's texts said or not, as it happens.

From that perspective, this is why I prefer the second version I gave of Amelia, even if it does not evoke, because of the bluntness of sexual representation and its colors and composition, the poetic, melancholic, bashful and very "autumnal" mood of Joni Mitchell's text.

The first version, which was part of the Collection submitted to Joni Mitchell in 1983 in Paris, is certainly more poetic, softer and more in line with the image that many followers of the musician carry of her -which is not mine though, as I already clarified before. Hence, the second version is more interesting for me, maybe because it conveys a feeling of magnitude, and is more about tragedy. The commentary is also valid, in some of its aspects, for the two versions I did of Song for Sharon.

After this second interview, I started the third and last cycle of works inspired by Joni Mitchell's writings, giving birth to things that I never had the opportunity to show her (all works post-1987 actually), which in my view started to become paintings. At least regarding some of them.

On that topic, I think that the difference between an illustration and a painting is not a matter of dimension, as it is commonly believed. An illustration is above all servicing the story or text that originated it. It is difficult to evaluate it without referring to that origin, no matter what its artistic merits might be –merits which can be huge sometimes, making these illustrations look more interesting than many other "institutional" paintings.