Although the site has material other than paintings, the paintings are what I am interested in hearing your thoughts on. I will not give an opinion, for reasons I do not wish to divulge, as I fear that they might influence yours.
Thank you.
I know a bit about photography, but extremely little about painting, and I’ve never heard of this person. That said, here’s my gut response:
Most of them leave me cold. They strike me as formless and sometimes annoyingly colorblind.
However, the one called Fire and Ice I find tremendously exciting. I love the colors; I love the juxtaposition of hard, sharp lines with wild and exuberant splashes. And there’s something about the thinness of the vertical swaths that just excites my eyes.
I know that the elements I’ve said I like are also present in other works; still, there’s something in “Fire and Ice” that appeals to me, while the others don’t.
Hope this is helpful.
Don’t really like it. Don’t like the use of colour or the pretentious titles, the emphasis on verticality in a lot of them leaves me cold (rather than uplifted, which verticality can sometimes do). Technically competent but doesn’t move me.
It looks exactly like the kind of art I find in the foyer of my accountants’ office building. Unthreatening but not soothing either. Corporate Art.
Are you the artist?
I like the paintings … I like the textures. I only looked at the first eight or so, but I like Moonlight in the Pines the best.
No.
There are certain types of artwork (including my own) that just don’t look right when shown on a computer screen. It’s partially due to the size reduction and partially due to losing dimensionality. I’d have to reserve judgement until I see them in person.
Too many straight lines. He needs to let his method run outside of tapelines. The Discord is too functional.
I like some of his paintings but most strike me as rather meh. I think my tastes overlap with jackelope’s because the ones he named were the ones that caught my eye as well. I like the verticality in his work but think his colour combinations are often… ugly. And he probably does need some techniques besides tape lines.
I have heard of this artist; his paintings remind me of other, better paintings by artists like Gerhard Richter or Pat Steir.
His association with the Talking Heads is the most compelling thing about his work, IMHO. That having been said, receiving a Pollock-Krasner grant is nothing to sneeze at.
If the Talking Head’s association is the most compelling thing about Dalglish, that sure isn’t saying much about the art, is it? Fair enough.
As another poster said, it is difficult to judge works of art online, and those of Dalglish do come off much better at a gallery, as some of them are quite layered, with different techniques and media adding quite a lot of interest. But they are uneven, with some that I like quite a bit and others that I do not like at all.
I wasn’t familiar with the work of Richter (I had heard the name), but I agree that the works of his I’ve just seen online are much better. Luminious and striking, with incredible color combinations. As far as Pat Steir, the less I say about her, the better. 
Never heard of this guy. I like it ok-- I especially like the ones with vertical elements or the otherwise geometric structures (the one with the archway figure I liked least for some reason), but then again I like a lot of stuff from the 80s. Reminds me of Richter and Keifer in a nice way. Or. . . like Agnes Martin and Morris Louis had a baby who got beat up in kindergarten by Sigmar Polke. I liked Temple and Owl-- reminded me of Pollack’s early early stuff but less. . . cheesy. And I liked the "Strindberg’ ones.