Abstract art and contemporary art



"Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty?" -Paul Gauguin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably not, but I think a lot of people meld a lot of those together in their work. I could have just as well called it Abstract Expressionism, or Contemporary Expressionism in order to make an umbrella forum. I think some people wouldn't know which forum to post in if I had two separate forums: Abstract and Contemporary.

I personally think a lot of people would post their somewhat representational art that is abstracted in the Abstract forum. Some of us that are purists would think, "what is that doing here?" While the person posting can feel like it's abstract. I just didn't want that to happen.

For that matter, people could start debating what is abstract and what is decorative. I know I could. ;)
Please Arty; keep it the way it is.
The endless categorising, pigeon holing, sub dividing, labeling, sterotyping and "debating" has to end somewhere short of purist perfection. What you have now is very workable and effective IMHO.
 
The label "Abstract & Contemporary" Art was always problematic at WC. Contrary to Keith Russell, who argued that all art is abstract (and it is) I accepted that the term Abstract is used by most people to denote Non-Objective Art. Arguably, we are all Contemporary Artists if we are living and creating art regardless of the style or genre or medium. Contemporary Art can be Impressionistic, Expressionistic, Realistic, Neo-Classical, Neo-Classical, Neo-Rococo, Neo-Renaissance, Abstract, Post-Pop... whatever.

This was always my understanding of Contemporary. But meh...I don't want to dredge up a debate when the labels as-is probably work just fine.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top