What Do You Think of Abstract Art?

[bigpanfish]

What art is and what makes for good or bad art has never been universally established and will never be determined as long as there is freedom of thought and expression.

Art by definition denotes "A superior skill." But who or what determines what is "superior?" Is "superior" subjectively subject to any one generation's view of "superior?" Is art not relative?

If good art is determined objectively by a certain generation, than where are the examples by which all art of all time is measured/judged? What generation is that authority and who of that generation is the supreme authority who determined these examples?

When someone (or group) says a certain work of art is good or bad, that person is saying that he (and maybe his group) are the ultimate and finale authority for that particular art form for all time. I say this thinking is the ultimate in egotistic hogwash. For some reason certain "knowledgeable" art critics come to mind here.

I love art and most artists I've met. But art is filled with so much baloney today it's beyond belief.

Do what you feel you must do. Those who like it will reward you and those who don't--don't matter.

[Flake]

On a semi-related note..

http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/...arlor-and.html

[Chris Bennett]

Absolutely bang on the money Flake! Precisely why it is so dangerous to consider 'abstraction' to be a separate genre.

[Rusty]

I don't mind Abstract art as long as there is some genuine skill, craftmanship, passion and vision driving it and not some attention seeking hipster shoving spagettios up her c*nt and pissing it out infront of a crowd of clapping retards.

I know, slightly elitist statement, but fcuk man this is my life and passion! I hate it when shit like that gets a worthy mention, it's a spit in the face. Trollin' mofos.

[s.ketch]

I know, slightly elitist statement, but fcuk man this is my life and passion! I hate it when shit like that gets a worthy mention, it's a spit in the face. Trollin' mofos.

According to this thread you're just jelly of their awesome art prowess or because they're rich. Player hater!

[Izi]

I dislike the idea of contemporary approval. Just because someone in 12th century Christian-dominated Europe doesn't like Tibetan Thangkas because they are products of people they would do harm to classically in response to the act of creating an image of Mahakala, doesn't invalidate the art form.

I have a very low opinion of public opinion. The individual, not the collectivist is the only proper judge of what is good art if we are to judge at all.

[s.ketch]

I have a very low opinion of public opinion. The individual, not the collectivist is the only proper judge of what is good art if we are to judge at all.

Where would art be without a collection of individuals?

[kev ferrara]

RANDIS... when is a chair not art?

[The Pariano]

Absolutely bang on the money Flake! Precisely why it is so dangerous to consider 'abstraction' to be a separate genre.

We should always separate the line between art that uses abstract shapes on their own to convey messages or emotions and art using bravado brushstrokes that have all the characteristics of abstract shapes but intend to be representational. Non objective would be better for the title than " abstract"

[Robotus]

When someone (or group) says a certain work of art is good or bad, that person is saying that he (and maybe his group) are the ultimate and finale authority for that particular art form for all time.

This is where you're wrong.

Without that assumption, you will find critics much easier to deal with.

[bigpanfish]

This is where you're wrong.

Without that assumption, you will find critics much easier to deal with.

Thanks for the comment.

[Yuushou]

By analogy, let us conceive of an "invalid" item-- a hammer made of chocolate.

Such a hammer would not be sound or effective-- it would fall apart upon striking nails and would melt in your hand.

The chocolate hammer is not "valid" because it utterly fails in the role of a hammer-- pounding nails.

You do realize that nothing in this world has any inherent validity, role or value right? Those are attributes assigned from the outside, they're not immanent in things. Taking your analogy as an example, the "role" of a hammer is not pounding nails. Although the creator intended to use it for that purpose, "pounding nails" is just one of the the many possible, equally legitimate uses that were and are still assigned to it. It may be the prevalent or most popular way of handling a hammer, but that doesn't say all that much. The masses' choice after all is still nothing but a collection of the same subjective preference...

[Kamber Parrk]

You do realize that nothing in this world has any inherent validity, role or value right? Those are attributes assigned from the outside, they're not immanent in things. Taking your analogy as an example, the "role" of a hammer is not pounding nails. Although the creator intended to use it for that purpose, "pounding nails" is just one of the the many possible, equally legitimate uses that were and are still assigned to it. It may be the prevalent or most popular way of handling a hammer, but that doesn't say all that much. The masses' choice after all is still nothing but a collection of the same subjective preference...

Oh crap. . . necrothread!

Lemme down a couple more vodka tonics and I'll get back t'ya. . .

M,kay!

[eru]

Hmm. Why do people hate it, theres nothing to hate really all art is acceptable and has their own creative thoughts and experience happening in their own way. Abstract art is not easy, its all about the finish product what kind of outcome is it. What do you want people to feel. Please see this artist Jeff soto https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=e...A82fiAeA14GYDQ He is amazing. He started doing graffiti before all this painting. I think abstract comes with knowledge how to interpret something without making it look like what it should. Making a whole journing leading to another. Does it matter if your realism or serealism even or pop art, caricature, not really much different. The outcomes are the same, all about grabing the audiences attention and telling us what they see in a piece of artwork. I don't like it when people say abstract looks easy or boring, its not that cool. Art overall is motivation, what drives the art itself, what makes it art. I started to learn abstract painting in high school very basic and that has got me doing the things i love in the future which is life drawing, anime , 3D, sculpting etc ----All play a part----

[bcarman]

If we are going to so this again maybe we need definitions. I am going to bed but I'm sure Tristan or someone will oblige. Jeff Soto's work is not abstract.

[arttorney]

We could make the thread itself abstract. lakghfyakfnblqekngpo13yt098 7utpo2i nt9d6g9fdhjfrek3\ n brtyhghdrt6fgfszaweraqaSXDCFVCDFVGGVFGBHHBGH;APW34[WP45-094-01Ikbjcyt2

4!

[Vay]

The problem with abstract art is that we cannot judge craftsmanship, skill, or discipline.

With representational art, you can see the blood and sweat by how much the artist understands light, form, perspective, anatomy, painting, drawing, etc.

You can't do that with abstract art. You can't tell the difference between a Dee Kooning's abstract painting and a Children's abstract painting, or even some of those random brush works done by an elephant or chimpanzee. There exists no standard to judge abstraction.

Using abstraction to convey realism is one thing, but using abstraction for the sake of abstract art is another. Abstraction to convey realism is more difficult than abstraction for the sake of abstraction.

Ultimately, I see why some might conclude about the use of abstraction in realism to justify the "difficulties" of abstract art, but I disagree in that it takes as much skill to create purely abstract art as to create a painting that uses abstraction to convey realism or stylized realism as the case may be.

[Kamber Parrk]

You do realize that nothing in this world has any inherent validity, role or value right? Those are attributes assigned from the outside, they're not immanent in things. Taking your analogy as an example, the "role" of a hammer is not pounding nails. Although the creator intended to use it for that purpose, "pounding nails" is just one of the the many possible, equally legitimate uses that were and are still assigned to it. It may be the prevalent or most popular way of handling a hammer, but that doesn't say all that much. The masses' choice after all is still nothing but a collection of the same subjective preference...

Anyway, having been a bit priggish to Randis in this thread, lets start with some definitions:

Definition of VALID

1
: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3
: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>
4
of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

You do realize that nothing in this world has any inherent validity, role or value right?

Wrong! My cells contain intricate DNA information that will not combine with sheep, goats or overstuffed easy chairs. Thus, my genetics are not VALID to create a Kamber-sheep, a Kamber-goat, or a Kamber-chair. THUS, my DNA is ONLY inherently VALID in combining with other humans such as myself. The role of my DNA IS assigned from within and IS an "immanent" quality of myself in relation to all humanity.

The role of a hammer IS pounding nails. Other roles, such as use as a weapon or a paperweight, are either inferior, ancillary, or incidental.

And. . . a Chocolate Hammer just ain't a hammer at all. . . .

[Elwell]

You do realize that nothing in this world has any inherent validity, role or value right? Those are attributes assigned from the outside, they're not immanent in things. Taking your analogy as an example, the "role" of a hammer is not pounding nails. Although the creator intended to use it for that purpose, "pounding nails" is just one of the the many possible, equally legitimate uses that were and are still assigned to it. It may be the prevalent or most popular way of handling a hammer, but that doesn't say all that much. The masses' choice after all is still nothing but a collection of the same subjective preference...

Unnecessary necro. Been there, done that.

[Elwell]

The problem with abstract art is that we cannot judge craftsmanship, skill, or discipline.

I disagree.

[Yuushou]

Anyway, having been a bit priggish to Randis in this thread, lets start with some definitions:

Definition of VALID

1
: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3
: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>
4
of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

First of all, what's a definition to you? Do you know what conventions are?

Wrong! My cells contain intricate DNA information that will not combine with sheep, goats or overstuffed easy chairs. Thus, my genetics are not VALID to create a Kamber-sheep, a Kamber-goat, or a Kamber-chair. THUS, my DNA is ONLY inherently VALID in combining with other humans such as myself. The role of my DNA IS assigned from within and IS an "immanent" quality of myself in relation to all humanity.

The role of a hammer IS pounding nails. Other roles, such as use as a weapon or a paperweight, are either inferior, ancillary, or incidental.

And. . . a Chocolate Hammer just ain't a hammer at all. . . .

That sentence is very unscientific. There is no immanent role of a DNA; no scientist would say that it is "against the function of a human DNA" if it combined with something else than another human. One would simply speak of a causal consequence that occured because of specific circumstances. You'd know if you were a biology major.

Who decides what makes another use ancillary? And why does something being incidental imply that it is a mere siderole? Many important tools in human history were created by accident.
And why are they inferior? What makes them inferior, except for the fact that they are not as commonly used as other roles? Nothing. Looking at a hammer does not tell you what to do with it; if you threw it into outer space and some alien would somehow catch it I bet that he would sure as hell not use it as intended.

And please don't answer with "just cause!".

[Vay]

I disagree.

Well there really is no standard on what abstract art is, so maybe me saying you can't judge craftsmanship is an overshoot. The term "abstract art" is so vague that you can argue that all of representational art is abstract art. Specifically, the truth of the matter I have implied, aims at artworks with the messy brush strokes from Flake's post. You can't judge craftsmanship there.

Just because there exists some types of abstract art that shows craftsmanship, skill, and discipline, this does not mean all abstract art shows craftsmanship, skill, and discipline. Representational art, on the other hand, is consistent in this order; you can always judge craftsmanship, skill, and discipline. When you see someone attempt to draw a figure stylistically or realistically, you can automatically judge his or her skill level.

Some guy stared at a blank canvas for a few months, sure he is disciplined if he actually sat there for months, but how can we judge the craftsmanship, the skill level, or the discipline even?

How about those 8 year old "prodigies"? How can you tell the difference between a messy painting of one artist from another?

[bill618]

Read ‘The Painted Word' by Tom Wolfe.
It may result in an appreciation for what Abstract Art IS, or it my generate a greater level of hatred for it.

My thoughts on Abstract Art resonate with this line from ‘The Painted Word’:
“…for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text[theory].”

Excerpt from page 2:
"... a review [1974], it was, by the Time’s [New York Times] dean of the arts, Hilton Kramer, of an exhibition at Yale University of “Seven Realists,” seven realistic painters . . . when I was jerked alert by the following:
“Realism does not lack its partisans, but it does rather conspicuously lack a persuasive theory. And given the nature of our intellectual commerce with works of art, to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial—the means by which our experience of individual works is joined to our understanding of the values they signify.”
Now, you may say, My God, man! You woke up over that? You forsook your blissful coma over a mere swell in the sea of words?
But I knew what I was looking at. I realized that without making the slightest effort I had come upon one of those utterances in search of which psychoanalysts and State Department monitors of the Moscow or Belgrade press are willing to endure a lifetime of tedium: namely, the seemingly innocuous obiter dicta, the words in passing, that give the game away.
What I saw before me was the critic-in-chief of The New York Times saying: In looking at a painting today, “to lack a persuasive theory is to lack something crucial.” I read it again. It didn’t say “something helpful” or “enriching” or even “extremely valuable.” No, the word was crucial.
In short: frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I can’t see a painting."

http://www.billemory.com/NOTES/wolfe.html

[tobbA]

“…for Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text[theory].”

But now you're talking about post-modernism. Not abstract painting.

[Cola73]

Is abstract art...art?

The art isn't art, if it isn't funded on abstraction.
The abstracting process allows you to express yourself, in the first place.

[JDSart]

What is art?

Baby, don´t hurt me...

Don´t hurt me...

no more...

BUMBUMBUMBUMBUMUN ♪

[bill618]

But now you're talking about post-modernism. Not abstract painting.

Though a little brief and a little vague around the edges, how did you forge that out of what I did say?

[kev ferrara]

The definitions of either modernism or postmodernism are not see easy to set, and there are hordes of art works that can be classified as both modern and postmodern.

A sensible standard for abstract art might be the following: Is it as good as Stravinsky at being abstract art?

[Kamber Parrk]

First of all, what's a definition to you? Do you know what conventions are?




That sentence is very unscientific. There is no immanent role of a DNA; no scientist would say that it is "against the function of a human DNA" if it combined with something else than another human. One would simply speak of a causal consequence that occured because of specific circumstances. You'd know if you were a biology major.

Who decides what makes another use ancillary? And why does something being incidental imply that it is a mere siderole? Many important tools in human history were created by accident.
And why are they inferior? What makes them inferior, except for the fact that they are not as commonly used as other roles? Nothing. Looking at a hammer does not tell you what to do with it; if you threw it into outer space and some alien would somehow catch it I bet that he would sure as hell not use it as intended.

And please don't answer with "just cause!".

[Am I really continuing to participate in this thread? Yes, I guess I am. . . I suppose I find stuff like this vaguely more interesting than doing a Sudoku or the midweek NYT Crossword. . . ]

So Yuushou,

I'll take my "definitions" from Mr. Webster, or perhaps Mr. Merriam in his online incarnation. Thus, I'll define CONVENTION for you:

1
a : agreement, contract
b : an agreement between states for regulation of matters affecting all of them
c : a compact between opposing commanders especially concerning prisoner exchange or armistice
d : a general agreement about basic principles or procedures; also : a principle or procedure accepted as true or correct by convention
2
a : the summoning or convening of an assembly
b : an assembly of persons met for a common purpose; especially : a meeting of the delegates of a political party for the purpose of formulating a platform and selecting candidates for office
c : the usually state or national organization of a religious denomination
3
a : usage or custom especially in social matters
b : a rule of conduct or behavior
c : a practice in bidding or playing that conveys information between partners in a card game (as bridge)
d : an established technique, practice, or device (as in the theater)
See convention defined for English-language learners »
See convention defined for kids »

And, well put VALID back up on the board for you as well:

Definition of VALID

1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>
4: of a taxon : conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

And, finally, lets throw in IMMANENT

1: indwelling, inherent <beauty is not something imposed but something immanent — Anthony Burgess>
2: being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge — compare transcendent
— im·ma·nent·ly adverb

If you are satisfied that I have answered your preliminary questions, we can move on from here.

[OmenSpirits]

What defines abstract art as being art?

Whoever is paying for it to be produced.

You commission me to create, I create. You pay, and you can call it art.

So it is art.

So what if art is being produced without a client, is it still called art or practice?


DISCUSS!