Nice little tale here, has quite a bit of sequel potential.
Thanks for entering!

I like this, very good.

Great idea and I think it works that in a story about painting the actual content of the painting is never described. Just the canvas and the act.

I imagine the canvas as being enormous but – and this may be intentional – the narrator could almost be sticking up billboards. It’s interesting thinking of a world where instead of people adbusting product billboards, the police are tearing down and cutting up artistic billboards.

I agree that it’s nice that the art isn’t described. Doing so could detract from the artist, and we wouldn’t want to do that.

I like the way you thought out his motivation and feelings toward his work, but I think it’d improve with a little more variety in the language. You can say a lot more if you use a similar word with slightly different connotations than re-using the same word. Maybe at least some more descriptors or something.

I didn’t really get the impression that the narrator is mad, at least not any more so than any artist.

It seems to me that the madness or sanity of the artist is bound up in what his/her “truth” entails. I like that this isn’t spelled out…it’s more intriguing that way.

I also like that the state of the world isn’t spelled out either. Is there really a camera on every corner? Are the people slashing his/her artwork really censors? I can’t help but be reminded of V for Vendetta…