Undeserving BS

Interesting views here:) I consider myself to be an abstract painter and am often surprised by the fact that many people "see" things in my paintings, maybe to some it only then becomes a painting when they can see something recognisable.
I really enjoyed the Storming the Citadel video, thanks for posting it.Oops sorry wrong thread:ROFLMAO:
I know nothing about conceptual art and when I first started painting I dismissed it as something too intellectual for my little brain to comprehend haha. Recently I've come across some work that I have really enjoyed, I'll try and find links.
 
@laf.art "it only then becomes a painting when they can see something recognisable"

I wonder why you say that. Why does it only then does it become a painting? It wasn't, or isn't, a painting if it is taken for what it is, something no one has seen before, or purely an abstract painting? Or are you trying to depict recognizable elements in the work? Just wondering if that's your intention.

Conceptual art: I like some of it because it can make you think. I like more of the Fluxus movement, which may or may not be considered conceptual. I knew Al Hansen (the founder of that movement) in a roundabout way. He is the grandfather of the musician Beck and I knew his brother and mother, and some of the family. I babysat Beck once! But wasn't close to him personally. We did play with the same musicians--once upon a time.

A lot of people are down on her, but I actually really liked Yoko Ono's concepts. I can't really stand her as a musician (and many people hardly call her that), but as an artist, I really respect her.
 
I am really enjoying this thread with all its opinions and pointers in new directions. It just shows that the visual arts and music are journeys of discovery and adventure. I love it and get very excited when I come across a new composer or artist to explore.
 
Artyczar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Arty - Thanks for the reference to Amy Sillman, I didn't know of her. I like her work too, and what I find fascinating about it is that she seems to follow what I call the 'red spot' rule. I've noticed a lot of abstract (non-representationall!) works that have one or more red or orange areas to catch the eye. Maybe that is too simplistic, as of course her works have many other colors, too, but the red or orange seems to leap from the canvas.
 
Hermes2020 said:
I am really enjoying this thread with all its opinions and pointers in new directions. It just shows that the visual arts and music are journeys of discovery and adventure. I love it and get very excited when I come across a new composer or artist to explore.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
@trufflecat I never noticed the red/orange spot, nor have I heard of this rule...do you have some kind of reference for this? Sounds fascinating.
 
I think I can see one way the lines between Abstract and Non-representational become blurred. What if the artist’s intention was to make a non-representational work, but a viewer sees something they interpret as something “real”? Does that make the work abstract? Yes, i guess, to that viewer. However, maybe not to someone else. So i guess there could be some importance to the subjectivity (or levels of) of the piece, perhaps influenced by its suggestions of form or space. Some works may have more subjectivity than others, but ultimately, someone could see “something” to them that feels like something they’ve seen before. Too me, most of Pollack’s work is totally non-representational. I see nothing I recognize, or like for that matter.
 
P. Barrie said:
I think I can see one way the lines between Abstract and Non-representational become blurred. What if the artist’s intention was to make a non-representational work, but a viewer sees something they interpret as something “real”? Does that make the work abstract? Yes, i guess, to that viewer. However, maybe not to someone else. So i guess there could be some importance to the subjectivity (or levels of) of the piece, perhaps influenced by its suggestions of form or space. Some works may have more subjectivity than others, but ultimately, someone could see “something” to them that feels like something they’ve seen before. Too me, most of Pollack’s work is totally non-representational. I see nothing I recognize, or like for that matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's well known that abstract is in the eye of the beholder. :giggle:
 
I never cared for Pollock either, but appreciate his contribution to the dialogue of how modern abstract art came to be. He is actually considered part of the abstract expressionist movement. "Non-representational" is not a term that is usually used in regards to his work, and this was what I meant before in my longer post when replying to Hermes.
 
Ayin,I re read my post and realized that as quite often occurs the clarity of my thought did not transfer to paper:).What I was trying to say is that having observed people at my exhibitions people often look unsure about my work until they find something that is a tangible thing to them, a face, house, whatever and then they seem (not all of course) to enjoy the work more or at least take a closer look. I call my stuff abstract cos they are abstractions of my thoughts:). Hope this makes sense
 
I think I get you @laf.art. I can understand that you would feel a better connection once you get that reciprocation from your viewers once they find something they can relate to in your work.

For me, even though I do not do strictly abstract work, of the non-representational kind, I still don't mind what people get from my work. I mean, of course I would like it if they enjoy it, but they can get whatever they want out of it and see whatever they like (maybe you are saying the same thing). I don't care if it's tangible or not. I often hope it's not tangible and that it's more like an overall feeling.

I think a lot of people (art viewers), and especially those that aren't super familiar with abstracts, need to see tangible things into abstract work or else they think it's "over their heads." I wish people just knew there wasn't anything mysterious about looking at abstracts other than just going with their gut.
 
Artyczar said:
Nufocus, if you do not like Frankethaler (actually, it looks as if you hate her work), that's too bad. You kinda make these statement as if they are fact when they are just your opinions, but I can not agree with you at all. I like her work. I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but I don't believe it should be so dismissed. I think the "expert" in the video wasn't spewing crap at all. He was actually deeply inspired by her paintings. I don't understand how you think this affects "underserving" artists. How so??? Who are the deserving artists and which ones "deserve?" Who are you to decide that??? Jeez.
Click to expand...


My feelings also.
 
john said:
My feelings also.
Click to expand...
Hard to accept he leaved just bcz he enjoy to insult. correct me if im wrong, instead apologize he stick to this kind of behave which it is a condition to stay.
shame for every human.
as one as see disable people almost everyday and see their struggle with life i will be their mouth ears and eyes.
 
One viewpoint is that ALL art is abstraction.

I know that over the years I've become more open to abstract art. I used to basically say WTF about a lot of it. Pollack is one example. But after standing closely in front of one at MOMA - it was big - and letting it occupy my entire visual field I got it. It felt like a dream, or being tumbled in an ocean wave, or an acid trip. It was exhilarating. The size and real life presence of abstract works have a lot to do with their impact.

I actually have a harder time with things like Warhol.
 
john said:
One viewpoint is that ALL art is abstraction.

I know that over the years I've become more open to abstract art. I used to basically say WTF about a lot of it. Pollack is one example. But after standing closely in front of one at MOMA - it was big - and letting it occupy my entire visual field I got it. It felt like a dream, or being tumbled in an ocean wave, or an acid trip. It was exhilarating. The size and real life presence of abstract works have a lot to do with their impact.

I actually have a harder time with things like Warhol.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate both Pollock and Warhol in their context, but not so much their aesthetic. I can see how what they did, when they did it, was cutting edge. It was a dialogue that hadn't been spoken yet and as simple as those things might seem to us now, it was rebellious during their time. So much art has been created on the shoulders of those artists and people don't realize it.
 
Artyczar said:
I can appreciate both Pollock and Warhol in their context, but not so much their aesthetic. I can see how what they did, when they did it, was cutting edge. It was a dialogue that hadn't been spoken yet and as simple as those things might seem to us now, it was rebellious during their time. So much art has been created on the shoulders of those artists and people don't realize it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as difficult as abstract can be sometimes I still prefer it over pop art. I guess pop art is still a thing though. Seems like Jeff Koons is doing OK with it. If doing OK means being ultra wealthy. :)

And thank you for not pointing out that I misspelled Pollock, again. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top