100 years ago The Case For Abstraction....
- Thread starter john
- Start date
Claude J Greengrass
Well-known member
- Messages
- 276
Consider the source: Sarah Urist Green. She seems to always be fast paced although entertaining in her presentations.
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,598
Thank you for that enjoyable overview.
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,315
A well done and thoughtful piece, even for those of us for whom abstract art fell off the end of the earth some time ago. But the telling quote for me is that it can be both "good" and "bad". And a lot of what I see is plain crap, which is just my personal opinion. To be sure, much abstract art does provoke thought - reaction - and in that sense it succeeds, even when it is esthetically blah or offensive. You pays your money and you takes your chances....
E.J.H.
Well-known member
- Messages
- 821
To be honest I have heard this argument in defense of very, hm, let's say doubtful (and often very expensive) pieces of art. I can hardly think of a lower bar to clear...
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,128
Well, like this video has stated, as quickly as this history goes by, abstract can be done well, and it can be done poorly. That doesn't mean ALL the expensive abstract work that comes up for auction is an awful farce, but not all of it is being purchased for its aesthetic purposes either. It's a lot like the stock market in actuality. In essence, inventing in art usually pays way better than the stock market (well, depending).
I learned something here. That Aleksander Rodchenko was hitting on pop art way before Warhol. I did not know much about him and his contributions to abstract art. It's interesting that he is not accredited for being a kind of trailblazer, and a pioneer of pop art. From the images that passed by in the video, that was exactly what he was doing--appropriating advertisement and the everyday within abstraction/non-representation painting, or no painting at all. Interesting. Like fifty years before Warhol. That was what I saw in that quick little film. I don't agree with his statement "It's all over," but I see that he needed to see it that way in order to evolve to where he went. And others followed, or at least took a queue from him.
I learned something here. That Aleksander Rodchenko was hitting on pop art way before Warhol. I did not know much about him and his contributions to abstract art. It's interesting that he is not accredited for being a kind of trailblazer, and a pioneer of pop art. From the images that passed by in the video, that was exactly what he was doing--appropriating advertisement and the everyday within abstraction/non-representation painting, or no painting at all. Interesting. Like fifty years before Warhol. That was what I saw in that quick little film. I don't agree with his statement "It's all over," but I see that he needed to see it that way in order to evolve to where he went. And others followed, or at least took a queue from him.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,128
How can abstract art become aesthetically offensive? Just curious. I see when it can be "blah." For sure. Do you mean to you when you just see something that's plain ugly? I kinda see what you might mean in that sense. I have seen a lot of abstract art that had made me have a guttural reaction where I can't help but to say aloud, "EW!"
john
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,030
Good observation about Warhol, I hadn't thought about that. Another example of where the "pioneer" wasn't really.
Your statement "abstract can be done well, and it can be done poorly" has me thinking. It seems obviously true, but what makes one piece well done and another poorly. An easy question to answer with realism perhaps? but with abstract?
I have no idea.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,128
I was quoting (paraphrasing) the narrator in the video, but what you bring up is a good point, because it is a matter of personal, subjective taste--for the most part. However, there are successful elements of any painting, abstract or otherwise. A realist painting can be excellently well-rendered and still be a flop of a work, depending on a lot of things--composition, subject matter, and how it is received. Same thing in abstract. "Subject matter" aside (kinda), but the other two stand. Obviously: composition, technique, color theory, values, and aesthetic value are important for starters. There are some works where many lovers of abstracts will agree are "good" and some where even a novice will agree stink up the room. Who can explain that? And who can explain the life-long mystery of what art or beauty is?
Mississippi Hippie
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,047
This is my response to the video-
I’m surprised of Abstracts spiritual/occult roots.. today’s Art seems to almost be void of spiritualism and almost anti spiritual.
I do agree representation without abstraction is kind of dead. Reading the responses here some of us this Abstracts “fell off the deep end” but to me, Abstracts are finally at a place where Artists lived and died perfecting only Abstract and today’s Artists May have lived only knowing/supporting it that it is a purer Abstract.
Just my 2 cents. (Or my nickel lol)
I’m surprised of Abstracts spiritual/occult roots.. today’s Art seems to almost be void of spiritualism and almost anti spiritual.
I do agree representation without abstraction is kind of dead. Reading the responses here some of us this Abstracts “fell off the deep end” but to me, Abstracts are finally at a place where Artists lived and died perfecting only Abstract and today’s Artists May have lived only knowing/supporting it that it is a purer Abstract.
Just my 2 cents. (Or my nickel lol)
