Abstract Art

Post Reply New Topic

I likes my abstract art, and my abstract expressionism, it's all good.

And I have to say, a few years back, I happenned to be in Canberra, so I thought I would visit the National Gallery of Australia, a place I had long wanted to see. Saw a lot of great art, but the one painting I particularly wanted to see, "Blue Poles," by Jackson Pollock. It was a religious experience for me I have to say, and one great stim toy, great to just stare and lose focus and just drift into the picture, layer upon layer upon layer to stare into and find. Highly recommended.


john

As an artist I frequently employ a technique of working on a wet surface and dropping random but somewhat controlled drops of colored ink, drawing lines in colored inks and pencil, printing in the surface with random textures, etc to obtain interesting semi-controlled patterns and then letting these patterns draw from my mental imagery to produce some reality. The random patterns can be saved via Photoshop to produce further different images. Here is an example:

I voted yes, assuming that I understand what the poll maker means anything that isn't realistic, representational art.

The term "abstract" is wholly abused when it comes to art. Technically speaking, if art is abstract, it draws from something that can be represented - i.e., it's "abstracting" from something concrete. So in that way it is representational.

I see no reason to criticize people for "explaining" abstract art, since it can be explained to some extent. Ultimately, abstract art is symbolic, and symbols must have meaning to be symbols, even if the meaning is not obvious or is very convoluted or intuitive. You can define a symbol simply as "something that represents something else" and that connection between the symbol and that something else is always an abstraction, regardless to how you derive it. So anything symbolic is going to be abstract, ipso facto, and that's why styles like surrealism or cubism are abstract. Klee, for example, is indeed an abstract artist, probably the best example of one, and most of his work clearly is representing something concrete in an abstract manner. This would hold true of Picasso's abstract works too.

Someone like Pollock or Rothko are better defined as "nonobjective" or "nonrepresentational," perhaps "experiential" (meaning art that can only be experienced and not intellectually understood), even though they are often described by people, including artists and art critics who should know better, as "abstract." Yet there is no abstracting from reality in their nonobjective work - the artwork works on it own set of intrinsic values and doesn't draw off of preset values (symbols) outside of it to give it a context. "It is what it is" so to speak. The irony of this that the more nonobjective this kind of "abstract" art is - especially with someone like Rothko - the more concrete it becomes. And often times people who hate it will describe it as such - "It's just a canvas with red and orange paint smeared on it hung on a wall" - not realizing what they are saying or why. It's almost like people get pissed off because they can't readily "abstract" anything from it (yet these are often the people who claim to hate "abstract" art LOL).

I'm not that keen on abstract or modern art. Especially not them "galleries" where it's just one picture of a paint splodge or and chair with a duck on it and call it art, that's not art, art needs to have some effort behind it.

Arguing about what is or is not significant art can be messy, but one must first have some concept about something basic. Sometimes a single line drawn with much skill that required many years to develop is very impressive even if the line required only a few seconds to draw. What is important is the final effect, not the effort in doing it. Art is instructive in looking at the world in a new and unsuspected way and it can require little or a great deal of effort to convey this innovation. Many drawings sweated over for days or even months are mere trite repetitions of very little interest. Essentially, at least for me, art changes me to see the world differently, however that work may be accomplished.

Let me illustrate what I mean about seeing and doing. Here is a painting I made by dropping some color on wet paper, folding the paper and unfolding it. I call it "The Lake at Sunrise". Who did it? I dropped the paint, folded and unfolded the paper but the image was done without what might be termed artistic skill. But my eye recognized the image and it is, at least to me, a valid delightful image. Is it art? You tell me.

I think it's definitely visually pleasing. I don't think that abstract art is not art but there is just nothing for me to enjoy with a black line on a white canvas. (I'm sure its possible for someone to enjoy whatever meaning they find a black line has but it's just not for me). I can either enjoy something that is visually pleasing or something made with skill because it's interesting to me. I have been in galleries with all religious paintings and still found it a little interesting because I could appreciate the effort (I think most of them don't have much aesthetic value) .

The common misconception that art is only for pleasure probably stands as a barrier to accepting a good deal of modern innovation. It is as if only amusing or beautiful films were acceptable as valid. Like film making, writing novels, poetry, doing comics, composing music, sculpture, ballet, theater, graphic art is a discipline to explore the possibilities of a selected group of specific techniques that can be admired for technical facility, for evoking beauty, or horror, or amusement, or novel viewpoints as to the nature of reality. Not all of these are beautiful but the good ones are significant and create something valuable for the observer.