[dzou]

Hello

i've read in an interview of a "portraitiste" that he moved to abstract art, cause it's a new level ( higher ?!?) of art and expression.
I don't really unterstand how an abstract work ( i read little things like public is devoted to do not unterstand it )
would it be more helpful to me to unterstand (not to know) all we can recongnize abstract but is the artist using the theory of color (for example)

anyone know really wich criteras to say "hmmm, that's a good abstract art !"

thanks everyone

[Matt Elder]

I guess the jury is still out on abstract art. I'm not a big fan of it. Its funny having conversations with people who are pro abstract art. A classic 'defense' is that if you don't "get it", then you just aren't intellectual enough. My response is usually along the lines that "if I was writing a novel, I wouldn't make up my own language that no one could understand". Same thing with abstract art, for it to have any real meaning, it has to be within a 'language' that people can relate to. Abstract art by definition eliminates the subject. Subject is usually the best way for the intended audience to react to as there is a shared experience.

Our only shared experience at the moment when it comes to abstract art is that we don't understand it.
_________________
See ya on da flip side
Matt
http://www.mattelder.com

[Pringle]

why do you have to interpret / understand it?

What I like about abstract art is that you are able to let your imagination run wild and see what you want too see in the painting. it can change from day to day depending on your mood.

[Ian Jones]

I agree with Matt Elder... the only shared experience of abstract art is the lack of understanding. I'm not even sure the artists themselves understand what they are doing because it seems very exploratory to me, and that indicates that an artist is searching for meaning I guess... So how can they inject highly intellectual meaning into abstract in any definitive means? There are plenty of other interpretations, but I thought I would throw a possible point of view out there.

[Impaler]

One of my all-time favorite movie moments is a scene from Steve Martin's L.A. Story, where he and three other patrons are admiring a painting. He goes into length describing what sounds like a Romantic period piece, a couple in a loving, tender embrace. The camera cuts to a shot behind them, revealing a completely abstract painting.

Just a small disclaimer. You can't go around calling everything that's not exactly academic or realistic art abstract. There's a distinct difference between H.R. Giger's work and the work of, say, Piet Mondrian or Marc Chagall. So, before you dismiss all "abstract art", it might be better to research the different influences and branches first. I would suggest the book Art and Ideas by William Fleming. It covers nearly every style of Western art from Hellenic to Pomo.

Anyways. Take a long look at all of the drawings you've produced yourself. There are certain qualities that you can pick out about your work, apart from basic realism. These are things like, the expressiveness of your brushstrokes, the shape of your lines, the use of color, space and form.

These are called the Formal Elements of Design, and they are a part of every form of visual art, be it sculpture, photography or a Sargent masterpiece. They consist of:

Line is essentially a point in motion. Lines can divide or connect areas and shapes within the composition. They also add a dynamic feeling.

Shape describes the outer edge of a form. The human figure is an objective shape in itself, composed of smaller, self-referential shapes like triangles, squares and circles.

Mass is implied weight inside a space. A big dot has more mass than a little one, a dark small dot has more mass than a big light one. Mass is critical for balance in your composition.

Space is created by the placement and relationship of lines and shapes in a composition. It is basically the infinite continuum in which everything in your piece is contained. This isn't strictly perspective space or a physical, tangible space. There are negative spaces created by shapes, for example, that don't necessarily contain anything except a void.

Texture is the tactile surface of a shape or plane or space. It can be smooth, rough, sharp, dull, everything that you can feel.

Color is the most complex formal element. Basically, color is broken into three distinguishing categories, which are Hue (the pure color), Value (brightness and darkness), and Chroma (saturation, intensity). Color is also the most emotionally charged element. A bright, intense red is agressive, cool dark blue is passive, stuff like that.

Finally, there's time and motion. A successful piece of art will always incorporate some sort of dynamic motion (and maybe even a sense of time). Visual motion is key to making a believeable space. Take a look at a Jackson Pollack piece. I guarantee your eye won't be able to stand still.

Abstract art, therefore, is essentially an absolute distillation of these formal elements. Whereas, other forms of art seek to use the formal elements as a mean to a higher end (like realism or impressionsm), abstract art is essentially an exploration of the intrinsic beauty of these elements.

So, how can one tell if a piece of abstract art is garbage or genius? One would need some set of criteria, and that's precisely what comes next. The Principles of Design are basically organizing principles one uses to arrange the formal elements into a successful composition. They include (but aren't limited to):

Scale and Proportion
Unity and Variety
Balance
Repetition and Rhythm
Directional Forces
Emphasis and Subordination
Contrast

These principles aren't relegated to specifically one formal element or another. They apply to each of them. When you judge the color of a piece, look at the contrast AND repetition AND contrast, not just one or the other. Keeping this in mind will help you develop a more critical eye towards not just other art, but also your own.

Now, I realize that I'm leaving you with no proper rules for judging the principles of design. That's the point. You can't compare one piece to another by projecting the successes of one to the other. That is to say, there is no RIGHT sense of contrast or directional force. You simply have to decide what looks good to you, not to a stuffed-shirt art critic. Ask yourself, "did the artist successfully emphasize one area over the other?", or even, "did the artist need to emphasize anything?" Understanding what the artist was trying to express is half the fun.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Matt Elder]

No doubt I agree with the formal elements of design that you have mentioned Impaler. I'm just not sure about the rest of it. Art seems to be a search for 'truth' of some description, usually relating to some notion of 'beauty'. Particulary with oil painting were one can spend so much time on a piece working over elements in the search for whatever 'truth' the artist is attempting. This seems to relate to the subject matter.

Looking at old masters paintings, they are not photo realistic. The artist eye has become a filter addressing the elements of design but usually supplanted to the whole and the subject - a sense of unity about the whole thing. Abstract art, as you've mentioned, addresses the elements of design for their own sake, and it is questionable about the unity of doing so.

Maybe there is a point to it or maybe it is just an excuse for abstract artists not to have the discipline and rigour of actually studying art. I'm not saying this occurs on the whole, but it would appear that way for the vast majority. So they are expressing themselves through what they are doing. Maybe. Or is it a whole bunch of stuffed shirts walking around pretending that they know more than what they do at the expense of other artists who put the time in to learn about what they are doing?
_________________
See ya on da flip side
Matt
http://www.mattelder.com

[aphelionart]

the debate between abstract and and "realism" is a gigundic fecal waste of every artist's time. the elements put forth in modern art have been with us all along in every "realist" painting, only hidden by the reality that we each experience every day. there is no true realist painting, nor is there no non-representational abstract painting. it's all derived from the perceptions of the artist and translated on the page... the realism is in your head, and the abstraction is on the canvas.

why paint from the world? because it's something that we all have a basic understanding of: light, depth - even cool/warm colors really are probably based on our experience in reality. abstractionists like mondrian find pictures from reality to be somewhat limiting, "tragic" even, considering the short time for which anything, even our own planet, really lasts... great abstractionists are actually at least as impressive as any other artist.. picasso, and mondrian, for instance, new the rules before they even began to break them and could draw/paint from life beautifully.

i say if your idea involves telling a story, say with people, then paint people. they dont necessarily have to look as "real" as possible unless it's pertinent to your goal.. and there's also no reason you couldn't include abstract shapes with those people (as long as the shapes and the figures work together!)

i agree that people have a way of taking abstraction for granted, but it happens with anything artistic... conceptual art, performance art, anime, punk rock...
but in all art (even the most life-like images) the greatness lies not in the artist's ability to simply mimic reality or whatever weird image happens to be in their mind, but to elevate its meaning through abstract design and elements (the ones mentioned by Impaler).

so go draw a person... maybe draw a big black circle behind it. make both objects work within the space around them, and suddenly the image isn't really abstract or real, is it? but were either objects ever one or the other anyway?

-matt

[jfrancis]

http://www.reason.com/0408/bagge.shtml

comic strip on art. Personally, I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it's funny in places.