Abstract Art, a Painter's Viewpoint

[mill]

Here is an article that was well received when it appeared in a Monthly Newsletter I contribute to:
ABSTRACT ART
I feel I must write to disagree with much of the current opinion held by those now writing about Abstract Art. Mostly it seems to be by people with Fine Art degrees who love dissertations. I am convinced that they see paintings as put into two separate categories. Abstract Art in which they cannot immediately discern a subject as opposed to Figurative Art where they can’t.

Oh how the Universities, or for that matter the whole direction of our present culture, is influenced by the commonly held belief that all human experience may be classified in order allocate an order of merit to each.

When an artist sees a subject he likes, the first stage is usually to draw it. This abstracts what is seen from one point of view and at first is a defining of contour from this one view. What follows is a drawing of shades to fix the form made by light falling on the objects from one viewpoint on one single occasion. It is shaped to bring to mind the similarity to the visual experience of those viewing it.

The transition to the painting itself the objects are shown in an arrangement that is the personal choice of the artist as are the colours arbitrarily matched to their visual appearance and varying as a result.

It would be impossible to show every leaf in a landscape or every hair on an animal so a certain amount of abstraction is necessary to indicate foliage and detail shown meticulously in a close up photograph, perfectionist amateurs could take lifetime over one landscape, some even try.

The fact of the matter is that the translation of three-dimensional reality into two-dimensional expression is always in itself an abstraction and it will always be an interpretation of reality.

At present the confusion today is complicated by the prevalence of photographic pictures widespread by the mobile phone and the internet. This in turn prejudices the public into a belief that the nearer a picture is to photographic detail, the better the quality. In this capitalistic society most of the pictures describe objects for sale therefore there are far more that are just illustrations of objects. This trend is most obvious when it is displayed in the work of many untrained painters, predominantly centrally placed single subjects in painful photographically detail with plain or formless backgrounds. In effect they are illustrations.

John

 

[TamPaints]

I find the concept of every piece of art inherently being an abstracted view of reality interesting. It reminds me of a video I saw recently by an artist known for their incredibly detailed architectural illustrations.

The interesting conclusion they had is, when viewed up close, that their details fell apart. They just looked like squiggles. They instead focused on the impact of the detail, not the actual detail itself.

That being said, it was interesting to hear that. I think they would agree with your article here, as even an illustrator known for their incredible, lifelike detail is also abstracting from the real world as well.

 

[mill]

Thanks Tam any feedback is very welcome.
John

 

[Bongo]

I don't think anyone is denying that realistic art involves abstraction but it is an abstraction in the service of rendering a recognizable subject -- or "figure". So in order to make a distinction between abstraction with "figure", and abstraction without figure we call the former Figurative and the latter just Abstract. It is a linguistic shorthand to make a distinction not "to allocate an order of merit".

ALSO As technological aids to make realistic paintings become more accessible such as - projection, tracing, computers,etc. - and the more the market is flooded with such imagery - the less they are viewed with fascination/appreciation by the public. If it looks like a photograph then it is in effect "a photograph" made with paint - and "so what".

From an anecdotal point of view I am seeing on walls more paintings of fantasy or fantastic imagery, and paintings done of pure abstraction than carefully rendered "photograph" paintings.

ALSO if you look at the contemporary art world - paintings selling in six digits plus, are by far not "photograph" paintings but pure abstracts or "figurative" paintings that are highly abstracted or imaginary.

 

[mill]

I don't think anyone is denying that realistic art involves abstraction

This wasn't what I said or implied, I really was talking about the views of most people talking about abstract art who turn to be those with History of Art degrees.
I find that many people spend too much time in this process of "making a distinction" in everything they come across. This judgemental business together with appeal to monetary value follows from a highly competitive society and very common among those who are not painters.
The true value of any art lies principally in the actual doing of it.
John

 

[Artyczar]

Abstract art and "abstraction" are two totally different things. I find it interesting that you titled your essay "Abstract Art" when that's not what you're talking about at all. Abstract art doesn't represent anything, and you don't need an art degree to differentiate that. You can abstract (verb) a figure, but that doesn't make it a piece of abstract art (noun). It's actually pretty straightforward. Your point, in general, is true. The forms themselves in any work of art are abstractions simply because they are being translated from reality to the 2nd dimension. That, in itself, is an abstract concept, but that doesn't mean you are making abstract art. These things are categorized so we can differentiate different types of art, basically, in order to discuss them and view them.

 

[mill]

Dear Artyczar,
I agree that it was not what the direction of my piece was about. However you say "These things are categorized so we can differentiate".
The actual gist of my article was that there was too much judgement altogether about classification, that it seems to add nothing to our understanding about painting. It seeks to add clarity by judgement and putting things into boxes, good for starting discussion where opinions are sure to differ.
John

 

[Bongo]

John

"that there was too much judgement altogether about classification, that it seems to add nothing to our understanding about painting."

But John - as has been pointed out distinctions, classification, judgment - is how we come to communicate in our quest for understanding. That doesn't necessarily end the conversation - but priori to further exploration. How else would you propose we do it? Is there another way?

Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you are commenting on the dismissing or devaluing of abstract art (as opposed to figurative) in some circles. -- but that is drawing the general from the particular- throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[stlukesguild]

In art school, there were those who insisted on using the terms "Figurative" and "Non-Figurative" as opposed to "Abstraction" in order to avoid the confusion with figurative art that was greatly abstracted (Picasso, etc...). Of course, "Abstract" rolls off the tongue far more easily than "Non-Figurative" ... and admittedly the term "Figurative" is just as often confused by people as "Abstraction" is in that many assume it denotes art focused upon the human figure.

As for the issue of dismissing or devaluing "Abstract" art... I know more than a few "Realist" (another term open to debate) artists who do indeed dismiss "Abstract"... or even figurative art that is a distance removed from Academic Realism: Expressionism, Cubism... even Impressionism. By the same token, there are Abstract artists with nothing but disdain for Figurative art... and even Figurative artists who see nothing beyond mindless technical skill in the work of polished Realism... or Photorealism. With the passage of time, I have come to appreciate a broad array of artistic forms and styles. Obviously, I have styles and genres that speak more to me personally... but I try to avoid dismissing styles and genres as a whole. There are individual artists and artworks that I will not hesitate to call "crap".

 

[mill]

Well, I must admit that my original piece has certainly has certainly given rise too a great deal of thought and discussion, even if not always charitable and occasionally dismissive.
I can best end my contribution by including my showing the latest watercolour by an 88 yr old has-been Art Teacher and Demonstrator.
Cromer Beach and Boats.

 

[Dave Woody]

I can’t paint for toffee….but what I have achieved is having had work accepted by a couple of
individuals, accomplished in their profession and highly regarded on the
world stage, with my amateur dabbling.

It was not by fluke, I sent… and they saw…. their passion expressed in paint.

Their written replies to me are more valuable than the art itself.

People mostly comment on the art they see by buying it.