Undeserving BS

Lazarus said:
Our minds is always in search of forms. this is what the mind is trained for. realism can please but it will never roll the mind like abstract do.
Click to expand...
Interesting point! Our little brains are evolved to search for recognizable patterns in our surroundings. Maybe some people approach abstract art like looking at clouds or finding the face of white Jesus in their morning toast. Pareidolia.
 
I don't know, pareidolia seems a bit of a 'shallow' fenomenon.
I would like to assume the artist put more how should I say, focussed, intentional meaning in his artwork (even if that meaning is not clear or understandable by me) than the production of random shapes. For that I can just lay on my back and observe the clouds.... ;)
 
E.J.H. said:
For that I can just lay on my back and observe the clouds.
Click to expand...
I rather look at moving clouds as an art than looking at horse that looks perfctly horse while i can watching horse in the farm :rolleyes:
Here is an abstract gift for you. sit back and relax.
z.jpg
 
I have no idea what you mean by that remark Lazarus ( I mean this one "I rather look at moving clouds as an art than looking at horse that looks perfctly horse while i can watching horse in the farm").
It seems you take offence to my answer to Iaika, but I am not sure.I f that is the case I am rather confused as to why.

As for your "gift", (that obviously is not abstract), thanks for your concern I guess , but I live in the icelandic country side (btw I actually am a horse owner), and I don't really need a picture of clouds to relax....

I will bow out of this interaction now, there is clearly nothing to gain from continuing it.
 
E.J.H. said:
I would like to assume the artist put more how should I say, focussed, intentional meaning in his artwork (even if that meaning is not clear or understandable by me) than the production of random shapes.
Click to expand...
I have been wondering if anyone uses intentional subliminal method in their artwork, or might that be the same as what you mean by "focused intentional meaning" worked into a painting?
 
laika said:
I have been wondering if anyone uses intentional subliminal method in their artwork, or might that be the same as what you mean by "focused intentional meaning" worked into a painting?
Click to expand...
Yeah, could be one form. But I think all kinds of methods to make abstract art could be covered by what I mean. It is a bit difficult to put in words, and I am no expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination ( :ROFLMAO: ).

I personally have trouble seeing the art in for instance dropping the contents of a pot of housepaint on a canvas from a great height.
If you would on the other hand take a brush (or your fingers ) and intentionally make a certain shape, even if it's completely abstract you created something yourself, instead of only letting chaotic forces play out. And I think such an intentional shape has meaning beyond the pareidolia fenomenon.

Now if someone sees art in an explosion of housepaint and is willing to buy that and hang on his wall, more power to them. This is just a very personal view. I don't think it is objectively the "right" view.
 
If it looks like it's a bucket of paint dropped from a great height, then maybe the artist failed (or maybe they didn't!) at their intention of putting a deeper impact into the work. But this kind of thing can also appeal to some people. I've seen it. I seen it where people like it. I've seen it where the artist had some great significance for doing something like that, and I've seen it when they just dumped paint on the canvas and were like "FU world!" I think this is where we pick back up on how all this is so subjective and according to ones taste.
 
E.J.H. said:
I have no idea what you mean by that remark Lazarus ( I mean this one "I rather look at moving clouds as an art than looking at horse that looks perfctly horse while i can watching horse in the farm").
It seems you take offence to my answer to Iaika, but I am not sure.I f that is the case I am rather confused as to why.

As for your "gift", (that obviously is not abstract), thanks for your concern I guess , but I live in the icelandic country side (btw I actually am a horse owner), and I don't really need a picture of clouds to relax....

I will bow out of this interaction now, there is clearly nothing to gain from continuing it.
Click to expand...
good for you.
 
trufflecat said:
Well. At first I found this a welcome and spirited discussion, but it seems it has turned angry.
Click to expand...

It's always fascinating to me when people use "anger" as a pejorative.

It's such a common dismissive tool online, "Why you so angry? LOL!" As if there is no such thing as healthy or justified anger.

But whether or not I was angry when I typed that post shouldn't matter. It isn't relevant. It was a state of the union message, so to speak. And look, here we are, all on the same page! It's wonderful. :)
 
Artyczar said:
I think it eludes a lot of people and they don't know what to say, or "think," but I don't think it's about thinking. Especially when you are first being exposed to it. It's about how you feel. You say "some of it is pleasing to the eye" and it's really as simple as that. So those are the pieces you like. Those would be the ones that spoke to you in some way that maybe you didn't have words for yet. Maybe you'll never have words for them. Just, "I kinda like this one" or "I think this one stinks" or "I'm indifferent to this."

I exposed myself to a LOT, lots and lots and lots of abstract art before I felt I could express how it made me feel. It does not matter what the artist says it's about. That is meaningless because it's not for the artist once it's hanging on a wall. It is for the audience. The viewer's eyes, and they have a right to interpret it any way they want to.

Some people think it's "over their heads." It's so simple though. It really about you visceral, gut feelings. Just like a realist painting might make you feel--a serene scene with water and a cottage, or whatever. A puppy. The way a vase with flowers is painted. Maybe the feelings those kinds of paintings give you are more familiar to people because those are more familiar subjects. Once you get more and more familiar with abstract work, the easier you start to see things and feel things you weren't aware of previously. And the more you look, you will start to see technique and skill and craftsmanship, not just the general composition. You become a better judge of what is good. But "good" and "bad" is always subjective in art. It either inspires you or it doesn't. (Or you just walk on by. ;) )

That's my take.
Click to expand...
This is undoubtedly the best explanation I've ever read about abstract art. Overall, it's still not my favorite genre so I don't look at a whole lot of it. But I do understand what is meant by at least getting enough from it that I could remark: "This one is pleasing to the eye," for whatever reason, and just take it from there. That's easy enough! So thanks for this, Arty!
 
Artyczar said:
If it looks like it's a bucket of paint dropped from a great height, then maybe the artist failed (or maybe they didn't!) at their intention of putting a deeper impact into the work. But this kind of thing can also appeal to some people. I've seen it. I seen it where people like it. I've seen it where the artist had some great significance for doing something like that, and I've seen it when they just dumped paint on the canvas and were like "FU world!" I think this is where we pick back up on how all this is so subjective and according to ones taste.
Click to expand...
The artist doing the dropping may also have goals other than producing a pretty painting, such as investigating the role of chance in art. Duchamp's 3 Standard Stoppages come to mind. Here the physical end result is not the main point, but rather perhaps, the awareness that all artists make use of serendipity, even when painting a realistic portrait or landscape. I don't think that is BS.
 
cranberryartworks said:
I once heard the term for a lot of 'art' like this, they called it "decoration".
Click to expand...
I know a lady who produces made-to-order abstract paintings to match a client's interior design scheme. Her large abstracts were generally pleasing to me, as she could create depth and calm and was clever with understated complementary touches. I used to think it was hilarious that people would pay her to match the drapes or the sofa, but that's really no different than being commissioned for a portrait, is it? She's made a sweet gig of it :) And right out of her basement at home!
 
Artyczar said:
I believe there is a difference between abstract art and decorative art. Maybe just like the different between erotica and porn, I can tell you, "I know it when I see it." Ha ha ha!!! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I have a question that leads on from what you say. As I have made it clear, I am an amateur without any formal art education, so I need help from the professionals here. Rightly or wrongly, in my mind I have always made a distinction between abstract and non-representational art. To me, abstraction is rooted in reality, since it means to abstract and express the essence of something physical like a figure or a still life. So, I see Picasso as the quintessential abstract artist. On the other hand, late works by Rothko and Pollock are not abstract, but are in fact non-representational paintings. It seems to me that lay people incorrectly refer to both categories of painting as "abstract", and I would like to hear some comments from you real artists who understand these things better than I do.
 
I also don't have a formal art education, so I would just look it up/Google it to read about the "technical" differences, but I (these are all just my opinions) think the term "abstract" has probably been blurred quite a bit, generally. I don't usually hear "non-representational art" used in the art world much when technically it probably would be the "correct" term for most work that's being referred to as abstract. Abstract is an umbrella term, in my eyes.

Like the joke I made, I hear it used to refer to decorative work, but who draws the line there? That's difficult. That's why I made the joke.

I have a wooden plank that I painted, which I use to display horizontally above our television. Everyone, including my gallerist, loves it and says, "I love that piece of yours." I always say, "Well, it's not one of my pieces. It's just decoration." A lot of people laugh because they don't realize what the damn difference might be, but that's okay. They think it's "fine art." It's not.

It's still art. It's just decorative art. It's non-representational--for the most part (there's a little stick figure scratched into it somewhere)--but it's been called an abstract because it's mainly just blocks of color.

What is is???!!! :ROFLMAO:

But I am with you on the technical terms. I do see a difference though in "abstract art" as a general term vs. "abstracted." I kinda look at "true" abstract art as non-representational art. Anything representational in it (to me), it's almost some kind of impressionism, but can still fall under as abstract art. But the more representational, the more it keeps leaning into impressionism, so lines keep blurring.

I think we have these terms as a baseline and not for finite purposes, ya know?

Not to keep blabbering, but one of my favorite artists is Amy Sillman who has become one of the forefront living abstract artists. She's considered a genuine "abstract" artist. There are always representational elements in her work (something I love about it). That would fall under what you are talking about. She abstracts reality to enth degree as a painter in my book. Whereas someone like Rothko was seriously a non-representational painter. He is still called an "abstract" artist, just as Pollock was, and Twombly, and all those artists. Maybe it's just a term that's used loosely, like a spectrum.
 
Thanks for the well-formulated reply. In spite of my question, I am actually not that concerned about the importance of putting works of art into pigeonholes, but I do believe that mutually agreed on definitions can be very useful in the kind of debate (or exchange of ideas) we've had here.

Now let's start talking about conceptual art. Just joking! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top