Abstract paintings...and other garbage.

[deliciouspeter]

I mean no offense by the title of this thread, just hoping to spur discussion.

I'll admit it. I'm dense when it comes to art appreciation and I probably am just ignorant to the qualities of abstract art. Or perhaps like all art, there are some good, fewer great, and a whole lot of bad. I usually don't get abstract/installation art but I see galleries/studios full of them, often at hilarious prices. There are a few I've mildly enjoyed, but countless more that I did not. I was just at a gallery walk last friday and 75% of the paintings were abstract and I just can't see the appeal.

Also the three "abstract" artists I spoke to were either very defensive or shy and responded to my sincere (and polite) inquiries with either hostility or redirecting back to me and my paintings.

I wonder if anyone shares my feelings, and could direct me to some abstract art/artists that may have moved you.

Thanks, David

[kev ferrara]

Deliciouspeter...don't bother about judging this stuff., Instead get some paint and canvas and actually try to do a good large abstract painting. Try with all your heart and soul to make a really cool work of art that is totally abstract. In my opinion, only then will you appreciate anything about the genre. You may never like it over "realist" art, but you will see that anything that difficult to make good must have some merit. Its kinda like photography. You may not think Photography is art, but it sure is hard to take a good non-boring photograph.

[Elwell]

In addition to what Kev has said, you should study the history of the twentieth century, especially the first half. You can't fully understand any art without understanding the culture that produces it, and abstraction is even harder because the subject matter is outside the work of art itself.

[Homeless Foxman]

You're not alone, I used to be the same way, even last year I should say. But really, I have to agree with what both of them said. It looks like "Not Art" to begin with, but it is very difficult to do compared to traditional art. Also there is a lot of bad abstract just there is a lot of bad everything else, It's just easier to come across a bad abstract piece because of the reason that it is very difficult. You have to have a lot of patience, and knowledge of color theory and composition to make a truly good abstract piece... And of course practice in this area.

[Boolean]

I remember in my art book in school there was a blank canvas with one black square on it that was worth about $35k. The page went on this big spiel about how the artist was trapped and his frustration with the art community bla bla bla. I thought "IT'S A SQUARE".

I've never understood abstract art, but whenever anyone says that to me I feel the need to defend it simply because of the artistic medium, I just have no idea what to say to them. I wish I knew what it was about abstract art that makes it so special, as I really would like to enjoy it, but dang it I just can’t figure it out.

[Epitaph of Sanity]

I understand the idea behind abstract art, just not the pricing.

[Anid Maro]

Been a while since I hit up the CA.org Forums, let alone reply... but I'm in a posting mood tonight so here we go.

I see abstract art more as a technical exercise than anything else. As others have said, I myself used to think it was all useless retarded crap... until I read up on it and understood the point and history behind it.

Nonetheless, even after reading up on it, I have a hard time seeing it as art. The lone exception I can think of is Pollock... and even then I only think of his process as art and the end result as an afterproduct.

To try and make a visually appealing piece with nothing but a black square and empty canvas is a very challenging feat indeed. However I consider that to be "art" as much as I consider my very own sketchbook renderings of referenced images to be art.

And for those wondering, when sketch out something directly from photo reference I'm not doing what I consider art, I'm exercising and testing my technical proficiency. That is also what I think of most abstract art as.

[Sady]

I understand the idea behind abstract art, just not the pricing.

Pricing is somewhat unrelated to the work itself. With traditional paintings for example, authenticity is much more valuable than skill or subject or whatever else.

[Chris Bennett]

Deliciouspeter...don't bother about judging this stuff., Instead get some paint and canvas and actually try to do a good large abstract painting. Try with all your heart and soul to make a really cool work of art that is totally abstract. In my opinion, only then will you appreciate anything about the genre. You may never like it over "realist" art, but you will see that anything that difficult to make good must have some merit. Its kinda like photography. You may not think Photography is art, but it sure is hard to take a good non-boring photograph.

Do what Kev has suggested - you will learn more in one afternoon than a year's worth of thought on the subject.
It's like making a film without the music, actors and plot - you will be dealing with the raw materials that make the medium unique.
It is something that sorts the men out from the boys.

[Hyskoa]

It's just something to keep slow people busy while they await their own death.
To give them a sense of purpose, to make them think their entire life wasn't useless.
Abstract art is just a big case of charity gone wrong for way too long.

[Cthogua]

wheee, an abstraction arguement!

My favorite part about this arguement is how cyclical it is. The attitude just flip flops. At the beginning of the 20th century up through the 70s almost the same crap was being flung at realist artwork. Its like that thread where everyone was up in arms that people would consider JS Sargent provincial, classist crap. However today Malevich's black sqaure, despite Suprematisms philosophical underpinnings, is reviled as a scam. By the 1950's you were totally behind the times if you were trying to paint in that old realist mode. Infact it was widely believed that the spirit of the time could only be captured with some new form of expression, as the quaint cottages of the social realists couldn't convey the power of the split atom or the devestation the world had suffered at the hands of two world wars. Philosophy aside, it's interesting how difficult it is for some people to see a painting as a thing, rather than a reference to something. Something to be appriciated for its intrinsic qualities, color harmonies, textural nuances, and composition rather than how well it fools our senses into believeing its representation of something.

The "Art World's" schizophrenic self hating cycle:

Look at this beautiful painting of a nymph cavorting in the woods. Surely this is the pinnacle of art

50 years pass

No...thats weak, provincial, and sexist. Representation is a lie. Non-representational painting is the only true art and the only way to capture the "spirit of our time"

another 50 years pass

Non-Representational art is an empty scam, perpetrated by lazy, overly intellectual artists that don't want to learn the skills required to make representational images

and thus we come to the beginning of the circle again...tomarrows generation will surely react against the rules and structures of academic realism and strike out on "their own path" unaware they're just riding the wave.

[Hyskoa]

You're absolutely right, we should never make the horrible, horrible mistake of non-representational art ever again.
We now know both options, and one option just sucks. So let's never choose it again and live knowing we made the best possible decission.

[Cthogua]

Oh the glory is you don't get to choose! No matter what you think of it, the next generation or couple of generations are going to make up their own minds based on what they've been trained to think is good and not good. When I say based on, I don't necessarily mean they're going to choose the one you told them was good...infact your assertion in one direction nearly gaurantees movement in the opposite direction.

[serhc]

We now know both options, and one option just sucks. So let's never choose it again and live knowing we made the best possible decission.

sounds kind of like a defense of abstract art i've once heard

[Hyskoa]

Oh the glory is you don't get to choose! No matter what you think of it, the next generation or couple of generations are going to make up their own minds based on what they've been trained to think is good and not good. When I say based on, I don't necessarily mean they're going to choose the one you told them was good...infact your assertion in one direction nearly gaurantees movement in the opposite direction.

Well then it's this generation's duty to find these people and make them the first to colonize mars.

But without the spaceship or government support. Or air.

[deliciouspeter]

kev, elwell, anid, chris and everyone (too many to respond to individually, but I read them and appreciate the response)

Thanks for the insight and great discussion points. I suppose my post was reactionary to the friday night gallery walk. Since then, I picked up an old Art History textbook to read, and painted a couple of paintings, and I really enjoyed the process, and the finished product.

Here is an older one. This was painted with a pickaxe, necktie and a turkey baster. I call it "Justification of Form: Part 2: The Awakening of Metabiology: A Retrospective (The Elephant)"

Sorry that is just an example of some of the wacky titles last weekend. Thanks everyone!

[eskanto]

I agree with kev and chris bennett. I especially like rob abeyta jr. I believe he sorta does a mix of abstract paintings and graffiti art.

[Nighthall]

I know that I'm probably just an un-intelligent bum, but I neither really see anything in abstract art. Many of the abstract pieces on museums are there mostly because of the painters name. I've seen a few abstract paintings I liked, one that had some really beautiful red and purple tones. Those are good, in my opinion. But way too many looks like the artist took three paint buckets and splashed them onto the canvas. But, if they just kept at the paintings, the world would be a better place. Apparently a plastic bucket, a pen-sharpener, a giant plastic rainbow and a toy-ufo stuffed randomly together is art. I just don't see 'art' in those. By the way, deliciouspeter, your painting is actually quite nice. Most abstract paintings also have those burning, almost neon colors. But, that's my opinion, and I am in no way right or wrong. I always liked to discuss this topic :P

[enrigo]

It's just something to keep slow people busy while they await their own death.
To give them a sense of purpose, to make them think their entire life wasn't useless.
The internet is just a big case of charity gone wrong for way too long.


That was the first thing that came to my mind when I read it. I'm such a dork :lounge:

[Farvus]

Thanks eskanto. One of those square paintings is now my desktop wallpaper :}

[Hyskoa]

That was the first thing that came to my mind when I read it. I'm such a dork :lounge:

No, that's a big case of militairy gone wrong for way too long.
Only slightly different from charity these days though.

[Jasonwclark]

As far as the innovation goes, I think its more like a guillotine now than a pendulum. Everything is moving and changing so much faster, its hard to see where the one stops and the other starts. The "divide" between realism and abstraction isn't nearly as interesting to me as the territory where the two overlap.

Before you come down on it too hard, you also have to appreciate the more subtle impact that this kind of work has had 50-100 years out (in shifting public tastes, giving painters more options, and the like.) Its hard to imagine, for instance, how we might arrive at some of this concept art we dig so much today, if other people hadn't removed some of those initial barriers for us a century ago. As a quick example: I have a real love-hate relationship with this first image, and a decidedly love-love relationship with the second. But who knows? - If the first didn't come along when it did, perhaps people wouldn't have been ready to accept the second when it happened... And that would certainly have sucked, because then we might never have had a chance to check it out.

[Chris Bennett]

kev, elwell, anid, chris and everyone (too many to respond to individually, but I read them and appreciate the response)

Thanks for the insight and great discussion points. I suppose my post was reactionary to the friday night gallery walk. Since then, I picked up an old Art History textbook to read, and painted a couple of paintings, and I really enjoyed the process, and the finished product.

Here is an older one. This was painted with a pickaxe, necktie and a turkey baster. I call it "Justification of Form: Part 2: The Awakening of Metabiology: A Retrospective (The Elephant)"

Sorry that is just an example of some of the wacky titles last weekend. Thanks everyone!

Is that the painting you did? I reckon it's damn good! It works from corner to corner with all the elements working together - the later layers working and answering the early ones. You understand a lot more than you think!! Try one where you are trying to compose something that is balancing elements that are off balance. In other words try getting disperate, foreign elements that are perhaps set to one side to harmonise.
Here's my attempt:


348346

[Farvus]

Nice. Here's my abstract stuff with focus on composition. Nothing special.

348380

[andymania]

good large abstract painting. .

Just curious,

What is a good abstract painting supposed to look like and what does a bad one look like?

-Andy

[Flake]

A good one is one that looks cool, a bad one is one which does not.

[ResidentSamurai357]

Some abstract painting's make great textures for 3d models and or characters...lol.
The ones that do not look like nothing and are just paint splashed on canvas I mean.

I think people who like abstract like the unknown, they like the unexpected and spontaneous colors and shapes that are put on
the canvas, maybe thats why so many people love to pay so much for colorful and sometimes odd painting's. Some are appealing to me while others are just there to make a poor artist money..

[Justin.]

I'll bet you I can find more bad realistic art than bad abstract art.

[aussiedeza]

Wow talk about generalizations do some research before you give such a strong opinion about something so broad, specially when you use the words "that's not art" *shudders*, come to think of it i overheard some old bird in a life drawing class last week say digital painting isn't art!!!! i had too gaffa tape my mouth to stop myself from abusing her.

[eskanto]

Thanks eskanto. One of those square paintings is now my desktop wallpaper :}

You're welcome. :) The one on the bottom is my favorite. It looks like he spilled a bottle of ink on a dirty napkin.

[Winned]

I completely agree, I think abstract art is really quite dumb. You should check out this (http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/879876) thead.

[Anid Maro]

Wow talk about generalizations do some research before you give such a strong opinion about something so broad, specially when you use the words "that's not art" *shudders*...

As a disclaimer, I should mention that my idea of "art" is some vague bullshit that defies definition. So when I consider something "not art", take it with a grain of salt. :)

And yes, I should work on making a distinct definition for at least myself.

I will readily concede however, that though I have problems accepting most abstract art as indeed art I have no problems with others accepting it as art. 'Tis in the eye of the beholder, after all.

[Chris Bennett]

I completely agree, I think abstract art is really quite dumb. You should check out this (http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/879876) thead.

But that's not abstract art, that's conceptual art.

[Ilaekae]

"What is a good abstract painting supposed to look like and what does a bad one look like?"

There is NO difference in representational art and pure abstraction and abstract expressionism. Both can be good or bad, and for the same reasons.

All art is based on fundamentals--balance, color-related issues, contrast, depth, movement, all the basics of composition, emotional impact on the viewer (or in some rare cases, lack of impact), and all the other boring shitty things you learn when you're young. The art that successfully applies these fundamentals is good art. The art that ignores these principles is bad art. And it doesn't matter if it's representational or pure abstraction.

Both require the same fundamentals, thought process and manual skills. They're simply applied in a manner that results in a different "result." And that result can be a failure either way, or a success.

Your reaction to those results is your subjective opinion, and says more about you (meant generally) than the original artist.

[Elwell]

But that's not abstract art, that's conceptual art.

OK, how's this? Nobody is allowed to participate in these discussions unless they can at least differentiate the following:
Abstract art
Non-objective art
Conceptual art
Modern art
Contemporary art

Have fun in Art History 101, kiddies, see you in a few months.

[Ilaekae]

I won't live long enough for one of these threads to move then. Thanks a lot, Dad!

[reversenorm]

It's a problem of context. I'd wager that those of you that dislike abstract art have little or no idea about the intent; or why the art is created. Abstract art (and many other "modern" varieties of art) tend to address art in a very philosophical way. The pieces often are an attempt to pose questions like "what is art?" "what does society think about art?" "Is art Process or product?" (process or product is what Pollok was about) or other philosophical questions like "Does art reflect life or vice versa?" "How do we perceive time?" and "What is the nature or reproduction?"

The thing is that the average viewer (and yes that includes us) doesn't consider the philosophical and/or historical context that the artwork was produced in and for. We look at it and asses it at a gut level of if we like it or not. What we deem good is usually based on two things, our personal understanding of beauty and our understanding of the skill level required to execute the piece.

In abstract art there's no rule about making it aesthetically pleasing (some do , and others don't). So often our gut reaction says it's bad. Also many of us have not created abstract so our understanding of the required skill level is is little to unknown, again resulting in an, "it's bad" reaction.

My opinion about abstract art specifically is that when the artist pays attention to the fundamentals of design ("What are the fundamentals of design?" was one of the questions that the abstract art movement examined) it usually produces a "good" piece. However; I feel that representational art can out do abstract art because representational art still must contend with the fundamentals of design while also presenting a believable version of reality. Where as abstract art can step away from believability.

In short I like abstract art, but I feel representational can be better (although there's still a lot of junk).

[Jasonwclark]

That's what happens when you change nature of the game from an aesthetic discourse into a philosophical discourse. Whether we like it or not though, the history of 20th century Art, is basically the history of how painters, critics, theorists and collectors, all conspired to transform the one into the other. Unfortunaltly for many of us, the Socratic elenchus (which was designed first to bait you in, then silence you, and finally to leave you in a state of complete aporia, before somehow making you wiser on the issue) doesn't always apply so well when used in other disciplines. I don't even think it works all that well in a philosophy classroom, though I suppose that's another issue altogether.

*edited- for the point*

If 'Modern Art' is like visual philosophy, then it shouldn't be very surprising that so many people have such mixed feelings about it.
If you don't know much about the glamorous lives of philosophers, (how respected they are and how well their works have been received), just ask Mel Brooks, or any of the Simpsons writers. :hatsoff:


Did you bullshit last week?
No
Did you try to bullshit last week?

[VirgL]

Ok, I never been to art school or whatever, but still how can so many people judge abstract art as dumb or shitty or garbage... Its like judging a type of music, saying Metal music suck when your someone who enjoy only classic music for instance. Maybe some of you are too young to understand that art as many facets ... a piece of art wont be better than anoter JUST because it shows more knowledge of the basics of art ( light, perspective, shadow, anatomy .. etc. ) Its all about the feeling and the beauty of the piece. Many people are so wrong-minded versus art, thinking talent is only a question of skills, when a big part of talent is judging what looks good and what does not in what you draw/paint.. you guys are so wrong, open your damn eyes because maybe art is not for you. Abstract exploit specific element of art and make a subject of it, it focus on other aspect of what we like when we look at things... And i agree by the way, many artists make big bucks selling ugly stuff but thats more a question of average mid-class society taste =P

[Hyskoa]

OK, how's this? Nobody is allowed to participate in these discussions unless they can at least differentiate the following:
Abstract art
Non-objective art
Conceptual art
Modern art
Contemporary art

Have fun in Art History 101, kiddies, see you in a few months.


A turd by any other name...




I did have art history infact. Still do. And they gave examples for all of those.
And it always ended up with shite.

Now I do admit, some contemporairy artists try their best to make something decent in present day reality, but it's just so damn hard to go against the general shitstream, it's ridiculous.


This has thus led me to believe that art history was created for people who hate art in such a strong fashion, that they actually need to categorize everything, just so they have a more efficiënt way of killing it with no way of ever ressurecting it.


Art historians and the modern day art collective want you to suffer, make your eyes bleed and kill your inner child.


They are... nothing short, of pure evil.

[eskanto]

This has thus led me to believe that art history was created for people who hate art in such a strong fashion, that they actually need to categorize everything, just so they have a more efficiënt way of killing it with no way of ever ressurecting it.
Art historians and the modern day art collective want you to suffer, make your eyes bleed and kill your inner child.
They are... nothing short, of pure evil.

Huh? :(

[Chris Bennett]

Hyskoa sounds like an art critic.

[Elwell]

Hyskoa sounds like an art critic.
“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

[Izi]

This is one of my favorite abstract pieces:

352890

Great Adept Ghantapa and Consort (http://forums.abrahadabra.com/showthread.php?t=1810)

[Chris Bennett]

“Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Thus Spake Tristanelwell......you're right as well.:wink:

[serhc]

Art historians and the modern day art collective want you to suffer, make your eyes bleed and kill your inner child.

it's a conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy), i tells ya

[Kman.]

hyskoa, do you even like art?

[deepbluehue]

"Justification of Form: Part 2: The Awakening of Metabiology: A Retrospective (The Elephant)"

Best title for a painting ever.

[Ohaeri]

GAAAHHH this argument makes me tear my hair out. >:{ Here comes a long rant. If you want to skip it, then please feel free to scroll down until you see "end of rant" :)

---

Maybe it's just because I spent like five years as an abstract artist (fractal artist to be precise), but I find it incredibly ignorant when people are like "ZOMG IT IS THE SUXXORZ!" without really having any basis for their opinion. (Not that I'm saying you did that, deliciouspeter.)

I always have to ask a few questions:

"How about YOU do an abstract piece that other abstract artists like?" -- We're a tough lot to please, believe it or not.

"How about YOU do an abstract piece that makes other people (even non-artists) go 'WOW, how did you do that?'"--And can I do this? Yes. Just check my sketchbook thread if you don't believe me.

"How about YOU try selling some abstract work?"--Because people are, by and large, more interested in representational because they are more easily able to understand it.

It's tougher than it looks to be an abstract artist, and in the long run, it becomes more and more not worth it because people look down on you or just look at your pieces and think "meh, it's easy, takes no effort, my three-year-old could do that." What artist wants to be treated like this when they work their ass off for their craft? And yes, I've worked my ass off for mine. I did three fractals a day for the longest time (a few hours each), I studied the math behind them, I learned color theory, I learned composition, I learned every single thing I could get my hands on regarding anything remotely related to it, only to be told repeatedly to go learn how to draw. :frustrated: Even though drawing has nothing to do with fractal art (about as much as it has to do with photography, for example; and yet, are photographers ragged on this much?).

In the end I gave up and went to draw so that I can prove to others that my first love and passion in the arts (fractal art) is OKAY and not a crutch.

Ladies and gentlemen who find it hard to respect abstract artists, please try to learn to do so. :( Or if you can't learn to treat others with respect, please learn to keep your mouth shut.

This post has been brought to you by five years of almost non-stop frustration and disrespect. Thank you for your time. :p

---

END OF RANT

And to answer your questions, andy, a good piece of abstract art (for me) has tight focus. It has some sort of meaning, even if the meaning is the appreciation of beauty. Every element that can be packed into abstract art without making it representational MUST be used. Doing a painting or other piece without something to represent is tough. You've got to be more sharp, more provocative, and more sophisticated with an abstract piece because the meaning often isn't clear. (Not that I'm the best or even that good . . . I'm better than some to be sure, but I still get my arse handed to me by my betters . . .) Even then you're likely not to succeed because of inherent bias (ahem). :) So it's not for everyone. At the moment, it's not for me, but here's a link to a list of pieces that have moved me most, and attached are some favorites of my own work. (I hope it's okay that I'm posting those here. =/)

http://fanficbug.deviantart.com/favourites/#Best-of-the-Best (<--deliciouspeter, these were pieces that moved me)

I sized the attached pieces down because they're frankly too big, which undermined some of the texture. But otherwise, there you go. Sorry if I've been overly "RAWWWR" about it but it's a subject that's been brought up to me time and time again these past few years, and I kinda get sick of explaining it to people who just don't understand and only want someone to hate on. Again, I know you guys aren't after that, so any hints of the sort that are in this post are me not wording things right. :(

[Telekon]

"Philosophy aside, it's interesting how difficult it is for some people to see a painting as a thing, rather than a reference to something. Something to be appriciated for its intrinsic qualities, color harmonies, textural nuances, and composition rather than how well it fools our senses into believeing its representation of something."

I now identify with the above quote. Also, I have 2 books of monsters created by Carlos Huante. I'm always amazed at most peoples inability to appreciate the simple beauty of his drawings and paintings. Instead, they get hung up on the idea they're looking at monsters. Then they turn off or shut down. It's such a limiting conditioned view. Personally, I think there's value in everything if one takes a moment to pause and look for it. Snubbing monsters and or abstract art is really the same mentality.

:assspank:

[Nerahla]

Ever since I can remember I have always had a large amount of distaste for the people who like to stand aside and consider their opinion of more worth.

I don't really know where this nebulous idea came from really other than pure experience. During high school and when my life began to touch other people's lives more fully and the world around me began to really open up -- I recognized the types of people who would take something subjective and criticize it for the pure reason of being critical.

They would pick a piece of art, any type, and compartmentalize it, categorize it, pick it apart -- and we MUST agree with their results because THEY are the authority, they are "in the know" and have special access to particular knowledge regarding such art.

Almost 100% of the time, these people were not artists themselves.

I think it's just another form of people trying to fit in. Wanting to be accepted. In their little effete circle, they all understand each other and feel superior to the plebian masses. It makes them comfortable. They have little to no surprises in their world, because they understand everything and everything has a place. That's fine. But to me, they are no different than religious fundamentalists, because they 'believe' that their way is the 'right' way and everyone else is just stupid, wrong or ignorant.

I've always felt that art is 100% subjective for the viewer and the viewer alone. We take away what WE take away when we look at a piece, totally and completely regardless of what technical ability the artist may have. We approach and view a piece of art with our own eyes, thoughts, emotions, pre-suppositions, prejudices, likes, dislikes, etc - I could go on forever. One can NEVER say anything cemented about any piece of art, ever. It's never constant... because the human condition isn't constant.

So in summation, adding my opinion to this mess was utterly pointless, because arguments like this are utterly pointless -- I just like to hear myself talk :P


EDIT: I just was browsing on my Stephenking.com forums and found this: It relates perfectly to what I was trying to say::::::::



Stephen King did himself an injustice when he compared his own work to a Big Mac and Coke. The hamburger analogy is a good one, but the simple fact is that Mcdonalds doesn't serve a very good one. Kings books are more like the expensive kind they serve in upscale steakhouses. Superbly prepared and made out of first class ingredients, sure but still simple honest food you don't need to be a degree in gastronomy to appreciate.

And here is where the conflict of interest with the academic community arises.

Stephen King is simply a fantastic storyteller. I read A LOT and can think of no one, living or dead who writes a more gripping yarn than King.

Stephen King's fiction like a great cheeseburger, is democratic and accessible to anyone. If you managed to graduate High School, you can read, understand, and enjoy Stephen King.

That is where the conflict of interest between the reading public and the people who make their living from teaching books arises.

The Cultural Gatekeepers (and the high school english teacher is the lowest figure on the cultural gatekeeper totem pole) derive all their professional status from their capacity to understand and unpack literary complexity.

When you have a writer like King who pretty much everyone can 'get' without the assistance of high falutin' academics, what is the role of the gatekeeper?

This is not to deride literary works that are 'difficult' or whose meaning is obscure and difficult to grasp. But obscurity and subtlety of meaning are not an end in themselves nor are they barometers of quality.

What is the most highly regarded work among literary gatekeepers? James Joyce's Ulysees, an incredibly dense rubiks cube of a book, written in a brain-wracking stream of consciousness style and filled with allusions of such obscurity that Phd literature students struggle with it. Its possible meaning has generated whole library-rooms room full of scholarly debate.

I am not passing judgement on the literary merits of Ulysees. (Frankly I'm not qualified) However the frequent choice of Ulysees as the greatest book of the twentieth century by academics should tip off the public to what the cultural gatekeeper game is about.

Literary elites prefer the difficult and obscure for the same reason lawyers prefer to write torturous legalese. Its incomprehensibility to the average Joe confers status upon them.

One day maybe 30 or 40 years down the road all the baby boomer pop cultural references so liberally strewn throughout Kings work will have become obsure enough to require footnotes. The natural idiom of his books will have dated and be harder for newer generations to understand and relate to. At THAT point Stephen King will be ready for the High School English class.
http://stephenking.com/forums/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://stephenking.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=149328)

[eskanto]

More eye candy by Jose Parla.

[Mindbendermind]

I just have to bump this one, since my humble beginner attempts at painting abstractly has caused so much negative critique and so far NO positive feedback whatsoever.

To me abstract art is like jazz. (I have been a drummer the last 15 years). All sincere jazz - or music - must go "beyond" the musician that simply becomes a creative outlet as he let's go of attachment and enters "The zone". The same state of consciousness is what I reach when I paint abstract. If you have never experienced "The zone" - through music or painting - I believe it is hard to appreciate paintings made in that state of mind, as an expression of that state of mind.

Finish this with a controversial statement: I don't believe anyone who doesn't appreciate jazz is "qualified" to decide which jazz is good and which is bad. I don't believe anyone who doesn't appreciate abstract art or has experienced - or can at least relate to the urge to paint such - to be "qualified" to say which abstract art is "bad" and which is "good". (Can compare this to the post about one who only enjoys classical music and therefore puts the "bad" label on every metal band - probably should mention that I enjoy and have played almost every kind of music, from classical via jazz to extreme metal)

But that's just my opinion. Now, if you feel like taking a look at my attempts at abstract painting (warning: first pieces look really messy and are painted with old Windows Paint) they can be found here:

http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2223618#post2223618

Still waiting for the first little glimpse of positive response to this...jam session. :-) At least it seems that not even all professional abstract artist are considered good, that makes it easier not to take it too personal.

[jhofferle]

Abstract looks pretty good when you compare it to stuff like Duchamp's Fountain. The whole idea of "it's art because the artist SAYS it's art" was a bit too much for me.

[Chris Bennett]

To me abstract art is like jazz. (I have been a drummer the last 15 years). All sincere jazz - or music - must go "beyond" the musician that simply becomes a creative outlet as he let's go of attachment and enters "The zone". The same state of consciousness is what I reach when I paint abstract. If you have never experienced "The zone" - through music or painting - I believe it is hard to appreciate paintings made in that state of mind, as an expression of that state of mind.


I find that what one responds to with great jazz players is the sound of their voice. I can put on any Bill Evans or Miles Davis or E.S.T album and the moment I hear one of their solos it feels like a 'phone call from a good friend. I don't really think of a particular 'great solo' so much as their 'sound as a whole' somehow appealing to me. The solo does not affect me in the way that a favourite song does and I have never been moved to tears by a piece of jazz in the way I would be with, say, a piece by Vaughan Williams or Peggy Lee singing 'The Folks Who Live On The Hill'. Excitement sure; Miles' solo on 'Bitches Brew' is one of the most scary things I have ever heard, Coltrane on 'Chasin' the Train' the most breathtaking etc etc. But it is the excitement of a becoming, not what it becomes. Bill Evans is the intigue of a becoming, Stan Getz the seduction of a becoming, Louis Armstrong the happiness of a becoming.

Visual art is the language of simultaneity. One sees an image all at once or not at all. For it to do its magic it has to work like a revalation, that is, instantly. It is the pleasure or deep joy of witnessing all the elements before us as the living evidence, the embodiment, of a completeness. Listening to jazz, or more broadly 'improvised music', is like the experience of flicking through the pages of a Picasso sketchbook. The exhilaration of following his train of formal thought is very like the experience of hanging onto the coat tails of a jazz musician in full flight. But the sketckbook process is not the same as the resolved image. Picasso's Gurnica is of a different order to the drawings that went together in preparation for it.

Thus I think it is a misconception to think of 'abstract painting' as equivalent to improvised music or, more specifically, Jazz.

[Grief]

To me abstract art is like jazz. (I have been a drummer the last 15 years).

visual art can absolutely be like jazz, or any type of music if done properly.
but you still need to learn to play the damn instruments.

i have no musical ability, nor have i ever seriously taken up any instrument, it would be fair to say i am downright awful musically. now, i am fully aware of how little talent i have, because i have given it no practice. i can see and understand the similarities between music and visual art in theory, but being decent at one does not mean i can instantly be decent at the other.

i would suggest a minimum of 15 years of drawing before you make any personal declarations of the similarities between the two art forms.

[edit]

Still waiting for the first little glimpse of positive response to this...jam session.

having read the link you posted you haven't recieved any negative feedback. people point of flaws out of concern for you to improve, be grateful others have taken the time to voice their advice. support and honesty are a rarity, cherish it when its freely given.


Abstract looks pretty good when you compare it to stuff like Duchamp's Fountain. The whole idea of "it's art because the artist SAYS it's art" was a bit too much for me.

can we please not derail into a discussion of Duchamp's ready-mades? use the search feature and read up on any one of the myriad of Modernist threads.

[MiniGoth]

A good abstract allows the viewer to see the intent, whether it be an action, or an emotion; a bad abstract pays no attention to color theory, balance, composition, etc.

Nude Descending a Staircase is one great example. Besides making use of a limited palette and being balanced well, the intent is to show motion - not too hard to grasp. In a time where moving picture cameras weren't invented, the painter wanted to show the change in the figure over time, over the figure itself. How cool is that? You don't need to be an art critic, or have a Master's to say 'hey - that box has lots of blurry legs'. The motion path of the basic figure is easy to follow. Even without training, one can see that the boxes are basically people shaped. With training, one can recognize the foundation cubes of the human figure, repeated as the figure's pose and position changes.

Many paintings and photographs capture an instant in time to tell a story - we get that, yah? Time is a dimension that's difficult to capture in a static medium - we usually show one instant. Now, we use all sorts of techniques to indicate a change in time - multiple figures, blurred lines, etc. Someone came up with it first. If you think about it, the technique first represented in this painting is used constantly in comic books!


One of the others that I like to hit on in terms of 'representational abstract' is Picasso's Blue Guitar. Kinda funky lookin'. Spend some time on it. After a while, it'll click. He was trying to show multiple angles of the same object within one plane of view - how's that for the first tries at 3d? While the result is nothing like what we can get in current computer programs, the idea is what adds strength. Pushing the limitations of the medium (2d) to represent the world around him (3d).

A debate about the choice of color is less clear - could he have used blue to express his frustrations with the translation? Or could it have been a deliberate choice to emphasize that this was not intended as a realistic painting? The most effective palette for him to emphasize the planes he saw? Or maybe that was just the color that he had the most of at the time. Maybe the cooler temperatures were considered more 'scientific'. There are fewer clear answers there.


When an abstract technique is used to represent an abstract concept, such as an emotion, the interpretations are always more open to debate. But the basic tenets - color temperature, balance - are the concretes that one can start with.

Babbling over...

[Reymus]

A lot of the hate towards abstract from classically trained artists, or designers, is a bit of envy and confusion.

For example, I knew a former co-worker that spend some 6+ years studying and training to be a figurative representational artist, and he produced some of the most beautiful paintings. He joined a local marketing group that puts on networking, educational and gallery shows for the artists that were members.

A few years ago, they had their biggest show of that year, and open to the public, most work was on sale. He sold one piece (I forget the figure, but it was below $1000 US).

A woman who had neither gone to school for art, nor was considered to be good technically, sold 3 of her pieces for thousands each. She was, from what I'm told, a scam artist, she knew her work wasn't good, but that the way you market yourself and "sell" yourself was better to make money than any amount of technical prowess.

So the guy summed it up as; He had gone through school, debt, unemployment, hell and back in order to make a comfortable, though not by any means luxurious, living, spending dozens of days, hundreds of hours painting, studying, etc.

While this woman, who admittedly herself debunks her work privately, makes 3, 4, 5 times the amount for what is a fraction of the time invested.

I don't know if he's justified to be angry, as it's the buyers who buy her paintings, but I can see where the anger comes from.

[the_jos]

Two boys walk on the street. Both are dressed in a school uniform.
One of them is 'n span, dragging the other along who's all covered in mud but having a huge smile on his face.

The question is: are you looking at the kids and comparing them thinking the clean kid is doing a good job dragging the muddy one home to get him cleaned, are you looking at the mud and find it disgusting or are you looking at the smile on the muddy kids face?
And if you don't understand why getting covered in mud could be fun, is that the kids limitation or yours?

[Twelve]

Abstraction in art frees me from the everyday and normal. Generally found to be vibrant, twisted and textured, especially in today's digital world. While I consider an artist who paints with photo realism to be very educated and talented. I find great pleasure in good abstract art and as fanficbug wrote "We're a tough lot to please, believe it or not." I find this statement quite true to itself.

+ I consider Andrew Jones to be an abstract artist and quite frankly his work blows me away and I know alot of other people feel the same.

[AdventDawn]

I definitely feel there are some beautiful abstract works, and I sure as hell don't have the eye to generate anything remotely as aesthetically pleasing as whats out there. Having said that, what does annoy me are the people and their mothers who skip everything there is to learn about art and anatomy, and instead dive in guns blazing crapingout figures like a picasso's retarded brother in law. Yeah, you've the seen types....u know what I'm talking about!

[Mindbendermind]

Many posts since I bumped this one. Interesting...


visual art can absolutely be like jazz, or any type of music if done properly.
but you still need to learn to play the damn instruments.

I agree, the problem is that people will never be able to agree on when that "knowledge" is achieved - some even prefer unskilled, unpolished musicians before technical pro's. In the end its all subjective, just as art.


i have no musical ability, nor have i ever seriously taken up any instrument, it would be fair to say i am downright awful musically. now, i am fully aware of how little talent i have, because i have given it no practice. i can see and understand the similarities between music and visual art in theory, but being decent at one does not mean i can instantly be decent at the other.

I - being backed up by Harold Speed ;-) - would say that any good artist must have some sense of rhythm and thus have some musical ability, if not on a "note" level at least on a "beat" level.


i would suggest a minimum of 15 years of drawing before you make any personal declarations of the similarities between the two art forms.

Well, since I have passed my thirties and probably made my first drawing when I was one, I have been drawing for more than 30 years. If you talk about daily drawing. Then again: What should be considered "drawing"? When I was into chess I drew chess diagrams almost on a daily basis does that count? When into martial arts I drew kanjis on a daily basis, does that count? Doodling during meetings or when bored, does that count? What I mean is it is not that simple to decide how much I have really been drawing the last 30 years. Probably more than I'm aware of. :-)

The declaration about similarities between art forms is not my own idea however, but rather based on what writers such as Musashi, T.S Eliot and innumerable others have said about similarities between the art forms. Since I've been studying - and written - poetry and literature extensively I have also found that the further you progress in an art form, the more similarities can be discovered between the different forms.


having read the link you posted you haven't recieved any negative feedback. people point of flaws out of concern for you to improve, be grateful others have taken the time to voice their advice. support and honesty are a rarity, cherish it when its freely given.

But I am grateful and I really do appreciate it. However I feel that it's remarkable that the response is so different between what has been written in that thread and for instance in my sketchbook or figure drawing thread. Not one word of encouragement to carry on with the abstract explorations. Not one word along the lines of "Interesting thread, interesting to see your progress". Maybe I have misinterpreted some of the comments - please point that out to me if that is the case - but I interpret the main advice to be: "You're a beginner and not skilled enough to do abstract art. Come back later when you're a good painter and maybe we will get something out of the abstracts you've painted."

As a comparison to the SB comments that usually give encouragement and says something like "Keep doing what you're doing and you will improve" it feels like being a beginner expressing oneself through abstract means is like stepping on people's toes.

OK, they may look shoddy - but to take that as an excuse not to give constructive criticism doesn't quite make sense to me.

Making a "search" on abstract art and finding threads such as this one makes it clear however, that abstract art seems to be a "black sheep", something controversial that many seem to have strong - and mostly negative - opinions about.

Again, this is the way I've interpreted what I've read. Just want to point out that I am extremely grateful for every comment I receive. I apologize if "negative" was the wrong description of the replies I was given - "different and not as encouraging to continue with the studies" would probably be a better description.

Thanks for your thorough comment, Grief.

[kev ferrara]

If you think about it, the technique first represented in this painting is used constantly in comic books!

Yes, Duschamp was the first person to use rhythm. Oh wait, no he wasn't. What could I have been thinking?

[MiniGoth]

:) Hey Kev! There's a difference in using rhythm to represent unity in form, balance, and to show the progress of time - this is the first one that I can think of that so abjectly displays a change of form to represent a progress of time. Can you show me an older one? Always interested in new things, and a web search wasn't much help.

[kev ferrara]

:) Hey Kev! There's a difference in using rhythm to represent unity in form, balance, and to show the progress of time - this is the first one that I can think of that so abjectly displays a change of form to represent a progress of time. Can you show me an older one? Always interested in new things, and a web search wasn't much help.

Yes, Nude Descending the Staircase is the apotheosis of abject displays of rhythm. I agree on that point.

[darkwolf29a]

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Painting-Like-Pizza-Understanding/dp/0691090521/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240256630&sr=1-1

I will suggest that book to anyone who does not understand abstract and modern art.

I have always liked abstract art. But, this book has helped me with my understanding of abstract art.

I've seen the painting of the black line, and I thought (at the time) that it was funny that it should be hanging in an art gallery at all. I still think of it as process art, but it is art.

Myself, I love fractals...all fractals. There are a lot of them out there that produce simply beautiful works, that mean absolutely nothing. It's just a pretty picture, period. When I make one myself, I go through a process of trying to see what the basic pattern is, and then I try and bring out any portions of the picture that I like. After that, I adjust the colors around until I find something I like. Yes, it's a process artform, at that point.

When I do an abtract, it's been a few years since I did one, I start off with an overall feeling I want to impart. My goal, at that point, is to make the viewer understand the how and why I went through the stuff I did to create the picture.

Let's face a few facts, art is simply a pretty picture or sculpture or something else, whatever your medium. Sure, we can sit around and tell someone that their stuff is not great, from a technical point of view, but...it's still art. And all art is beautiful from a point of view. It's just that some people do not care for the particular methodology used to create it.

This argument reminds me of a picture that my parents had over their couch for years. I was not much of a fan, because it was somewhat grainy. It was a picture of Paris during a rainy evening. It always seemed so dark and dead. There seemed to be no life in it....but it still art.

I think we should all stop being so pertentous and start to see art for what it is, art. Some of it's pretty, some not...and only you can decide what is pretty and what isn't.

[Mindbendermind]

One simple answer to the philosophical question "What is art?" could be that anything done with an artistic intention is art.

One simple answer to the question "What is the purpose of abstract art?" could be "To ask that question about what art is".

Guess the main question is: Can there ever be an answer?

[kev ferrara]

All communication is not the same. Birdsong is not the same as engineering plans for a Moon Rocket. Fechin ain't Mickey Mouse. Farting ain't Gershwin. You want to play in the nonjudgmental sandbox, that's your prerogative, but don't tell me that art is simply a pretty picture or any old thing. Or better yet, don't tell me that the vast amount of aesthetic philosophy bandied about through the 19th century was all elitist bullshit.

[Grief]

Let's face a few facts, art is simply a pretty picture or sculpture or something else

:nohope:

it is a nice day, i'm going to go paint outside.

[hitnrun]

The lone exception I can think of is Pollock....

From what I understand, he became famous because his wife was a museum curator and a promotor of sorts. All he had to do was throw up paint on a canvas and his wife would be like "hey everybody look!"

Abstract art hits a nerve with me - I do not like it, and I do not think I ever will. I have my feelings, beliefs and convictions about abstract art, but that's all I will say for now.

[EightArms]

I think of Vonnegut's "Bluebeard"-- "The Emperor has no clothes!"

Abstract paintings, to ME, are a guttural response to the world around you. Compare Rothko, who I like, to Vermeer. Now have an earthquake, and pick through the rubble to put the paintings back up. Absent the hanging wire, how do you know about the Rothko, and in what way is his intention thwarted by orientation???
Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario, given our documentation, but I kid to make a point-- Abstract art requires work to "understand", as it often lacks any representational waypoints to base our responses on. Representational art comes pre-packaged with certain inherent accessibility due to our familiarity and recognition with the inevitable objects depicted.

The challenge, as I see it, is to force the recognizable to represent the intangible. :D

But I wouldn't say abstract art isn't art, it's just not what I prefer.

[Elwell]

From what I understand, he became famous because his wife was a museum curator and a promotor of sorts. All he had to do was throw up paint on a canvas and his wife would be like "hey everybody look!"

Shows how much you understand...

[Mindbendermind]

From what I understand, he became famous because his wife was a museum curator and a promotor of sorts. All he had to do was throw up paint on a canvas and his wife would be like "hey everybody look!"

Abstract art hits a nerve with me - I do not like it, and I do not think I ever will. I have my feelings, beliefs and convictions about abstract art, but that's all I will say for now.

It's a thin line between love and hate - maybe you should give it a try? :-)

As I said before: Reviewing abstract art when you never have tried it yourself - or at least can relate to it, not the HOW but the to me much more important WHY - is to me like putting a jazz critique that has never listened to a single metal song to review the latest grindcore release (or the other way around). No matter how musical he is he won't be able to write a good review - at least not from the metal fans point of view - since he lacks the understanding of the genre.

And Kev, I didn't say that I consider everything with an artistic intent behind as art. I just said that one COULD have that opinion. To me, however, abstract art is closely related to all the deep philosophical stuff like what art is, meaning, spirituality, moral, judgement etc.

Abstract art to me is "the art of the subconscious", an attempt to make a physical representation of the "is-ness" and "nothingness" that will never let itself be captured in images or words.

Hmm...maybe time to get some coffee...

If what I try to say sounds too "out there" I blame my literature professor. I've never been the same after his lectures about Ontology and Nothingness. ;-)

Thanks for keeping this interesting discussion alive.

[Farvus]

Lately I've been a lot into design, shapes, compositon to improve that side of my concept art. I experimented with that for a while and it really made me appreciate abstract art. If you stay away from it (especially good one) then you're missing great opportinity to learn some interesting stuff.

This one is my favourite:

Paul Klee "In the desert"

"Color possesses me. I don't have to pursue it. It will possess me always, I know it. That is the meaning of this happy hour: Color and I are one. I am a painter." - Paul Klee

652113

[the_jos]

I was also thinking about music as a reference, only a little different.

When you look at the development of populair music in the 20th century you can see similair paterns where one generation does not 'understand' the music of the next generation. People who were raised in the pre-rock&roll period could have a hard time understanding the movement at the end of the 60's and the people from that period would have a hard time to understand the way music 'evolved' in the 80's. And the same for the 90's and beyond.
What's music for one is noice or a wall of sound for someone else.

Was Janis Joplin making music or just screaming her heart out?
Do the guys from Daft Punk make music or is it sound?
Since Mindbendermind mentioned metal, does a band like Cradle of Filth really make music?

To clear the discussion I think we have to define if the artist is part of the art or is not.
In music this is rather clear. Most of the time people will consider the artist part of the music. The same song performed by two different artist can cause a completely different emotional reaction.

But for some reason many people looking at visual art look too much at the subject. Without seeing the artist behind it.
In abstract art there is no subject. Or it's not recognisable. So all you have is the artist and his/her expression. Now the question is: is (s)he a good or a bad performer?
You know (s)he's a bad performer when you are indifferent of the art.
But if (s)he triggers your emotions in whatever way, how can you say (s)he's bad if you don't know the subject? When you have nothing to compare to?
When you only have your own feelings....

[Mindbendermind]

In the end all roads lead back to Star Wars, and the wisdom of Obi-Wan:

What I told you was the truth - from a certain point of view...

[Derek the Usurper]

Abstract art to me is "the art of the subconscious", an attempt to make a physical representation of the "is-ness" and "nothingness" that will never let itself be captured in images or words.

Thanks for keeping this interesting discussion alive.

I don't know about you, but when I'm dreaming (experiencing my subconscious) I see tons of representational images. I'd compare it more with surrealism than I would with abstract art. Perhaps abstract art is so abstract that it cannot even be linked with something so representational as the human subconscious?

[Chris Bennett]

A painting is not beautiful in proportion to the beauty of its subject.
Most people judge paintings by 'what its a picture of' - if the subject appeals then they like it, if it doesn't they don't.
Making an 'abstract' painting really puts to the test whether you can step up and make something 'work' by virtue of the means of image making pure and simple.

On the subject of self expression. What is so wonderful about an artist making us a present of their personality?

[Chris Bennett]

In the end all roads lead back to Star Wars, and the wisdom of Obi-Wan:

What I told you was the truth - from a certain point of view...

Truth, by definition, is not a point of view.

[kev ferrara]

Truth is an ideal. For a Platonist, that means truth is a universal unit of human meaning. For a postmodernist that means truth is a social construct, because to a postmodernist all ideals are political in nature. A Platonist sees all things as infinitely and intimately related... A postmodernist lives in an alienated state of bitter specialness.

Mindbenderman... all art derives its existence from subconscious forces. Works of commentary, didacticism, criticism and sensationalism only pretend to be art. Mimesis just doesn't know any better.

[bcarman]

Truth is abstract.

[Elwell]

On the subject of self expression. What is so wonderful about an artist making us a present of their personality?
Bill Cosby on cocaine:

I said to a guy, "Tell me, what is it about cocaine that makes it so wonderful," and he said, "Because it intensifies your personality." I said, "Yes, but what if you're an asshole?"

[Itazura Usagi]

Composition is very important in creating a successful image whether abstract or representational. When an artist has developed a strong visual language, measurable effective compositional decisions are made by the artist at the subconscious level. An excellent book on composition is 'Composing Pictures, Still and Moving' by Donald W. Graham. Visual Art is a communication. It requires the Artist and the viewer to have certain common understandings to transmit and receive a message. Commercial art uses familiar devices to get the viewers attention on the viewers level. The viewer's eye is led around the composition in a very calculated way for the purpose of evoking a desired response from the viewer. Concept art, is designed for immediate reads, to have impact on first glance. Again, the formula is tried and true and serves it's purpose. There are very talented illustrators and ones who need experience and hard work to get there. There are very talented abstract artists and others who need experience and hard work to get there. It seems to me that a general lack of understanding of composition makes it hard for a lot of people to understand and judge the value of abstract expression.
Why are you surprised to be getting such a negative reaction on this thread?
the majority of artists on this forum are honing their skills toward representing form as LIGHT describes it. In this case it's like talking to classical musicians about your r&b slow jam demo. I would just keep painting no matter what. keep learning all you can and expressing yourself visually, and make progress. Let the work speak for itself, some will enjoy it others will hate it, and most won't care either way.

[darkwolf29a]

In the end all roads lead back to Star Wars, and the wisdom of Obi-Wan:

What I told you was the truth - from a certain point of view...

Truer words have not been written in this thread. Well Done!!!

[kev ferrara]

Composition is very important in creating a successful image whether abstract or representational. When an artist has developed a strong visual language, measurable effective compositional decisions are made by the artist at the subconscious level. An excellent book on composition is 'Composing Pictures, Still and Moving' by Donald W. Graham....

Good post, Itazura...

Except that Donald W. Graham's book is often total nonsense. No working artist would consider that book a sensible primer on composition. I think it is so sought after because it is so sought after, as if it contained all the answers to the Disney magic. It's a macguffin.

[Chris Bennett]

Truer words have not been written in this thread. Well Done!!!

Buzz Lightyear has a pretty good take on the ineffable too.

[Serpian]

A good one is one that looks cool, a bad one is one which does not.

I think what Flake said on the first page of this thread is true of all forms of visual art.

[HugeHarHar]

I've avoided piping in here for a few days, but I just gotta. Personally I consider myself way more of an abstract artist than anything else, I enjoy trying it all, but I always come back to it.

I figure it's time to try something. I, and anyone else who wants to, am going to post up some abstract to non-representational "garbage" that appeals to me. If you don't like it, tell me why. I want more than "it sucks" or "I just don't like it".

The artist's in order-
Adam Bricusse
Daniele Girardi
Frank Stella

[Derek the Usurper]

I've avoided piping in here for a few days, but I just gotta. Personally I consider myself way more of an abstract artist than anything else, I enjoy trying it all, but I always come back to it.

I figure it's time to try something. I, and anyone else who wants to, am going to post up some abstract to non-representational "garbage" that appeals to me. If you don't like it, tell me why. I want more than "it sucks" or "I just don't like it".

The artist's in order-
Adam Bricusse
Daniele Girardi
Frank Stella

Doesn't the man/horse in the 1st, and the butterfly in the 2nd sort of disqualify them as being non-representational?

[HugeHarHar]

I said abstract to non-representational. Maybe I didn't put that right. I meant abstract and non-representational. I'm including a variety because not all "abstract" art is non-representational.

[Mindbendermind]

Buzz Lightyear has a pretty good take on the ineffable too.

OK, I'll admit it: I don't get this one (Years since I saw "Toy story"), what does B L say?

[the_jos]

On the subject of self expression. What is so wonderful about an artist making us a present of their personality?

I'll keep this to visual art for simplicity.
On one side I'd say it doesn't matter. And the object represented in art is all that matters.
On the other side it does matter. You don't go to an artist only because of his technical skills.

For example, let's say I want a painting or drawing from my cat.
This can't be only about my cat. When it was only about the cat I could have him on photo. Take 300 shots and there will most probably be one that is pleasing. When I want a painting or drawing I'm looking for the way the artist expresses my cat.

Next thing we have concept art. Things that don't exist but are put on canvas by artists. That's part of someones personality. Not everyone can think that way and even less can put it on paper.
Somewhat of an example of this are the works by Dalí, those show something about his personality (or maybe better, the personality he wanted us to believe he was).

Then we have this art that represents nothing visual.
What's so wonderful about that?
Maybe admiration. To make a little sidestep to music, Mike Patton once made a song "latte alla luce verde". Green lit milk represented in sound.
I know that's something I would not even try to put in sound.
It twists and turns the mind in ways it's not been twisted and turned before.
And I think that's closely related to the personality of the artist.

@Mindbendermind: probably "to infinity and beyond!"

[Mindbendermind]

Aha, that's where that expression comes from. Thought that was from Star Trek (ashamed).

Another good way of describing - and painting - abstract art the way I see it is found in the old Zen saying:

When you seek it, you cannot find it.

To anyone who doesn't like abstract art and still haven't tried painting one single abstract painting, I say: Try it. You'll learn a lot about yourself along the way. You'll probably also look at abstract art through slightly different eyes afterwards.

[Chris Bennett]

On one side I'd say it doesn't matter. And the object represented in art is all that matters.
On the other side it does matter. You don't go to an artist only because of his technical skills.


Have you noticed that it is only in your most resloved works (not neccessarily the ones most laboured on) that you are most 'yourself', that possess something that connects them like a DNA that we tend to call 'style'?

This is where the confusion regarding self expression arises because we tend to think of style as the hallmark of personality. This is not the case. Style is the name we give to the evidence of a self supporting whole - a work or body of work whereby everything that forms it is consistent and mutually affirming within itself.

This has nothing to do with subject matter or personality. It is an expression of a sense of wholeness.

To be 'yourself' means to be whole. Personality is merely the quirks within that wholeness.

[the_jos]

Thanks Chris for clearing things up.
I now understand what you mean.

[Zirngibism]

I don't know if it's like this with everyone, but I see abstract paintings in my head ALL DAY.

Example:
Seeing/hearing the number 27 triggers an abstract image, sort of a top-heavy form that's mostly a deep reddish-orange with little bits of purple and blue, with most of the orangish color in these pointed shapes hanging out at the top. They're a little aggressive looking, and follow a slightly curved path that goes mostly clockwise (maybe reflecting the shape of the symbols "2" and "7", now that I come to think of it...). It's "warm" and has more friction among its parts than some other numbers. It's kind of agitated, too.

Single words do this too, but the association I think of sometimes depends on the context of the word and is subject to change. Random letters trigger pictures though.

Words, numbers, and sounds trigger abstract images that are usually a combination of colors with one dominant one, that's "shifting" in a way. The more I concentrate on trying to hone in these little "associations", the more they begin to disintegrate. (I think it's synesthesia.)

Anyway, I've tried to capture the image of one of these visual "associations" in its "spontaneous" state in the form of abstract painting, and have failed every time. It seems that the little associations in my head refuse to be pinpointed, and makes trying to capture them IMPOSSIBLY HARD.

If I ever do this successfully someday, I'll be more proud of myself than I ever was doing something representational.

I had always figured that most abstract art was made to express a certain word, place, or idea, and that the artist made it up as they went along. It took me awhile to realize that maybe that image just pops into their head when they think of that thing. In that case, wouldn't it mean that some some supposedly nonrepresentational abstract artists actually DO use reference? (Maybe that means they're no longer called nonrepresentational...) The only difference is that the image they're referring to naturally occurs in their mind. But it still means they're not making forms up from nothing, as I'd always tended to think.

Anyway, I remember reading that some abstract artists have/had "mental, visual associations" to images and recorded them in painting (though I guess we'll never know how accurate the visual recordings were, will we?)

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia_in_art

I hope I wasn't confusing. I guess the main point of what I wrote is that not all abstract artists are making things up, because there's such thing as "mental reference".

[Elwell]

(I think it's synesthesia.)
Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaesthesia).

[Wooly ESS]

Some time back, I attended a three day workshop focussing on abstract art. We all had our little projects that we worked on throughout the workshop. By noon on the third day, I was nearly finished my paintings, but I somehow felt they were lacking something. So, I drew a representational object on each of the two abstracts I was working on (a dog on one, and an elephant on the other to be specific). I immediately attracted a small crowd, and I heard one onlooker wistfully say, "Gee, I wish I could draw!". Somehow, that one comment summed up abstract art for me.

Don't get me wrong. I have no philosophical objection to abstract art, and quite like some of it. For me, however, it just doesn't seem quite "finished".

[Black Spot]

I don’t feel abstract is like jazz; it’s more like a song with lyrics – that is the good ones. Take the blank canvas with just a large slash through it, it’s calming like Gregorian chants. Loads of juxtaposed colours and it’s scat. If they harmonise, it can be a joyful chorus singing full blast into your face. There are tons of shit abstract pictures that can’t sing, but those that do shine.

[kev ferrara]

Blackspot... I'm slightly confused. I think you meant to say well structured abstracts are like songs without lyrics. Yes?

[JParrilla]

i think what bothers me the most about this art is the work put in. Artists who want to portray realistic objects in their art need to study and practice for years. Its not easy. It takes time, heart, drive, dedication, etc. I see these abstract pieces that are marveled at and I wonder how much this artist really had to work to produce this? It seems like they dont need an understanding of anything visually. To me it seems like an easy path to art.. you can get some people to marvel at your art.. but you dont really have to work much to produce it. just my opinion so dont bash me.. i just find it annoying when I work hard everyday to improve. To me, art should speak for itself.. thats why its a visual medium. When I look at a Linda Bergkvist paining, or a sargent portrait, I can understand the mood exactly. I know what its supposed to mean and its clear. Why is it that abstract art is so frequently followed by a convoluted title or description.. with all of these emotional bullshit terms, trying to explain it? Because the art hardly speaks for itself.. 99% of the time.. you look at this stuff and just say WTF is that? It shouldnt take a paragraph by the artist in order for a viewer to get whats going on.. if you wanna explain shit in words.. write a book

[HugeHarHar]

So art is supposed to be "Oh, I get it. Next!"

I'm going to repeat whats been said several times by others on this thread.

Do some for yourself. You still need to understand composition, rhythm, variety, and everything else that makes eyeballs happy. I agree that there is a lot of bullshit out there, and it can get super-uber pretentious, no doubt there. Still, there's more to art than people, places, and things.

What about passion, frustration, being drunk, being alone, shit, piss, the way the sun feels, thinking your smart, being straight, being gay, being black, not being white, being white, being krunk.

I'm not trying to bash you, but there are abstract artists who spend a lot of time learning their art, just like every other artist out there.

[JParrilla]

So art is supposed to be "Oh, I get it. Next!"

I'm going to repeat whats been said several times by others on this thread.

Do some for yourself. You still need to understand composition, rhythm, variety, and everything else that makes eyeballs happy. I agree that there is a lot of bullshit out there, and it can get super-uber pretentious, no doubt there. Still, there's more to art than people, places, and things.

What about passion, frustration, being drunk, being alone, shit, piss, the way the sun feels, thinking your smart, being straight, being gay, being black, not being white, being white, being krunk.

I'm not trying to bash you, but there are abstract artists who spend a lot of time learning their art, just like every other artist out there.

I know your not bashing me.. everyone is entitled to an opinion. Maybe I just havent come across anything that has interested me yet. I understand different feelings and meanings and all that. But most of this art I have come across really does seem like paint mindlessly thrown around a canvas. Im not gonna bash it.. I just choose to not marvel at it like some other people. Im gonna go back to studying my ass off to do what I wanna do. If people wanna create abstract art thats fine.. doesnt mean I have to appreciate it.. doesnt make me any less of an artist.. to each his own. Im not going to hop on a modern/abstract art bandwagon because its "hip" or "now" or whatever.

[Elwell]

everyone is entitled to an opinion.
"Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks."
--Harlan Ellison

[JParrilla]

"Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks."
--Harlan Ellison

I respect everything that you have to say Tristan, I really do. And that quote is correct. But I dont see how being informed about this art will change my opinion on it. What I see is what I see. If I look at something and it doesnt appeal to me.. I dont see what can change my opinion. Ive studied art history and i understand it.. I really do. I respect all kinds of art. But I have yet to see an abstract piece that Ive liked.. and I dont think that any amount of research or understanding can change what I like, Im always open to new things.. but I dont see myself enjoying this stuff.. maybe Im wrong and one day I will.. But right now. Im indifferent towards it. And I dont think I will be less of an artist because of this. If I look at a piece and say ehh I dont really like this.. but I then have the artist explain to me his or her thought process and ideas he had while making this, then I read up about abstract art.. I cant see myself going back to that piece and saying wow I like this!

[HugeHarHar]

Once again.

Do some. You havn't found any that you like yet? Make some you like. If you can make some that you a)enjoy looking at and b)still looks like your own work, it'll give you a new way of looking at art work that you want to do.

I mean if your not willing to do so, then I'm not sure why you're posting in this thread. Is it to jump on the "abstract art is for dummy dumbs!" band wagon? Now, that's just silly.

[Grief]

biggjoee5790 i can promise you that the more you study and learn about art, the more you will appreciate things outside of your normal aesthetics and comfort zone. the most damaging attitude you can adopt as an artist is to deny yourself the opportunity to expand your experiences.

[JParrilla]

HugeHarHar - I see what your saying. And no I didnt post here to bash an artform.. just to express my feelings on it thats all. Perhaps your right and by trying it I will gain a new appreciation for it. Just not right now cause I have tons of other studies to do :) Thanks for not flipping on my opinions though.

Grief - Your right.. and I do always want to expand my experiences. It is true that I have had nothing but bad experiences with this art form so far. But the future may hold something new. Im always looking to learn and adopt new things

[Orban]

i think what bothers me the most about this art is the work put in. Artists who want to portray realistic objects in their art need to study and practice for years. Its not easy. It takes time, heart, drive, dedication, etc. I see these abstract pieces that are marveled at and I wonder how much this artist really had to work to produce this? It seems like they dont need an understanding of anything visually. To me it seems like an easy path to art.. you can get some people to marvel at your art.. but you dont really have to work much to produce it. just my opinion so dont bash me.. i just find it annoying when I work hard everyday to improve. To me, art should speak for itself.. thats why its a visual medium. When I look at a Linda Bergkvist paining, or a sargent portrait, I can understand the mood exactly. I know what its supposed to mean and its clear. Why is it that abstract art is so frequently followed by a convoluted title or description.. with all of these emotional bullshit terms, trying to explain it? Because the art hardly speaks for itself.. 99% of the time.. you look at this stuff and just say WTF is that? It shouldnt take a paragraph by the artist in order for a viewer to get whats going on.. if you wanna explain shit in words.. write a book

Abstraction need practice. The level of practice can be the same to master the medium, and finding how to balance everything is as hard as with illustration. It's work, years of it !
Some are obviously only splatter of paint applied randomly. Shit happens, and well, I've seen my share of very bad illustration. To be honest, excellent illustrative skill are as rare as abstract skill, even on this forum.

Some abstract art seem to need text, it's true. But it's not every abstract art who are in this spirit : Kandinsky, Miro don't need a fucking text (point, line and plane from kandinsky explain his philosophy, not his drawing for example). I don't like verbose painter, most of the time I too think it's to hide the emptiness of their work, it's sad !
Knowing things about those painter can obviously help in the appreciation of their work. True. I've already stated it before I think. But it's the same about illustration : how do you think people react when they discover a cover from Spawn ? Do you think they immediatly find it "cool" and perfect ? Hell no. Most people don't like dragon, or girl that show their boobs in tight leather strap (prude people and so on).

All paintings are acquired taste. Not one style is more "natural" than the other. It's a dream.

[FallenGodX11]

All paintings are abstract, since even representation paintings are not the real things themselves. The real term is called non-objective paintings. We all have to think in the abstract to some degree because it gets a general idea.

[gogidolim]

I have no problem with abstract art. What I can't stand is Pop Art. Google Nancy Lang and see what I mean.

[kingshaj]

biggjoee5790

as you are a member of this site, ill take a wild guess and make the assumption that you aspire to involve yourself in concept art or scifi/ fantasy art in some way.....

abstraction of forms, rhythms and "shape vocabularies"... or "thumbnailing"?
...or visualizing/generating ideas out of textural chaos (like when an artist sees a space battle out of a series of random strokes


these are foundational elements of the standard approach to concepting



it bogles my mind that someone can be into concept art and hate abstraction.



this is a perfect example of how taking the time to hate anything is not only a waste of time, but quite literally stunts your artistic education

you are throwing away the most important tools of your trade.





-