Comments on: Abstract Paintings : The Reality of Abstract Art Philosophy

By: the power

the power — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:41:12 +0000

“The realist’s work screams, “Look at me! Look at my wonderful draftsman-like skills. See how well I can copy a photograph?” ”

Some artists exclusively copy from photograph, but they become a slave to it, and most good ones don’t copy from photographs like a slave. There is a lot to copying photographs in representational art- it’s about learning composition, science of perspective and lighting. And it is about telling a story, creating worlds, creating a mood, which is the true purpose of representational art.

Photographs are just references, don’t be a slave to it. It is a tool for beginner students.Remember, Da Vinci didn’t have any photographs..Da Vinci studied perspective and the science of light with a passion.

It is a common misconception, and a common reason why people think that representation gets boring..well if all I do is copying photographs, it really becomes brainless and boring too!

By: The Furr

The Furr — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:14:41 +0000

Right on brother. I used to be the ones saying abstract art is fucking lame until.. i did my own abstract and man that shit aint easy. Its deep and personal, and those who cant understand that dont take the time to look at it. Some art looks like a two year old did it for real but someone out there can see the meaning. There is major meaning to abstract art and Im glad I can see that now.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:22:25 +0000

great comments and post…may I add, as an expressor of the abstract, that the concept of what we think we see is not what we actually see, remains conceptual unless actually investigated. Artists who seek to learn how to draw what they see, are fooled point blank by money makers….and thats the old approach. That the word is the object….false.
The new approach which actually isnt new at all, but rather new in the sence that the info is more readily available, is that what you actually see is not what you actually see. Abstraction is the closest we come to in terms of seeing what you actually see. And thats what makes it so unique. It also comes about through a kind of looking through all the bs the brain has been taught is the world we know.

By: Nik

Nik — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:10:28 +0000

Love this discussion. I have recently taken an interest in certain abstract works. Some of the works of Basquiat, Kandinsky, and more recently Shawn Mcnulty to name a few really intrigue me. Looking at these works does something for me that representational art doesn’t do. Looking at some of these works give me a pleasant mental jolt like a good cup of coffee. Sometimes the arrangement of color, forms, texture, etc. is so intriguing I almost forget to breathe. For furnishing the walls of my own home, I find something uniquely tasteful about using some of my favorite abstract pieces to go along with my more representational ones. I have nothing against flowers, landscapes, and bowls of fruit but I wish my local art scene had more art that provided an alternative to the sometimes mundane reproduction of the reality I am so familiar with.

By: Pagani

Pagani — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:46:50 +0000

Ian, I don’t have any basic disagreements with what you have said. I think there is a lot of abstract art that is “unpleasing” because it’s much harder to do than people think. There is this tendency with abstract art for people to say, “My kid could do that” …well, the answer is ‘maybe’ but more than likely your kid wouldn’t do it very well. There are rules to creating a great abstract painting – things about depth, balance, values – that are much harder to divine or intuit. Everyone knows a pretty sunset when they see it; an abstract painting that draws the viewer in has things going for it that are much harder to articulate.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:57:34 +0000

I am a realistic artist, but I have worked in abstract on occasion. I create my landscapes mostly from my imagination, however, I have painted scenes from places I have been. Just taking a picture does not capture the feeling and mood that I felt when I was there. Creating a good realistic painting captures the feeling that a photo just is not able to do as well. Anyway, I am frustrated by the comment that someone on here made, ‘that it is easier to copy from nature then to paint abstract art’. I feel to do either one well takes great skill! I would like to see that person paint the way I do easily! Anyway, I have seen a lot of abstract I did not like at all, but from time to time I see something that stands out. With those pieces I have seen detail with abstraction and the movement and textures were interesting. I would however suggest to any new artist, to start with realistic and then after you feel pleased with your abilities move to abstract if you want. The abstract art will be much better for it. As an artist I respect other artists more if they can do both! I paint more realistic because that is what sells in my neck of the woods. There are a lot of people who simply want something they can relate to and that is pleasing to look at. Why is there so much abstract that is unpleasing? But yet when I see a good pleasing abstract it really stands out! Thoughts?

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:54:16 +0000

I agree with Pagani for the majority, however I will add my personal experience/perspective with abstract and representational art. In my conception of abstract art the term “expressionism” is the key to understanding any reason for the purpose in the art. With the more famous abstract artist, Pollock being the best example, the process in creation is a process of visually representing a continuing stream of consciousness. In zen Buddhism, meditation at its basic level is the process of passively observing a stream of consciousness. This can to some degree be said that the creation of abstract art on a non-representational and expressive plane is a process of meditation, whereas the point of intuitive guidance is impulsion without obstruction of the conscious mind. The reason for this goes back to psychoanalysis (which most “real” abstract artist were heavily involved with). The process of this “meditation” in the creation of abstract art which represents a continuing stream of consciousness that is not conscious thinking means that it is actually a representation of a continuous stream of unconscious processes. This in turn means that it can be reflected upon in the process of psychoanalysis. To take this further, the process of psychoanalysis uses symbols (which can be represented in a plethora of ways including experiences) to “understand” the origin of these unconscious processes. These symbols are translated by the individual in his/her reflection of their experiences in life from a individual perspective input only and the psychiatrist being a mentor/help guide the direction of where to look for reflection. When this is successful this in therapy leads to an explanation to the individual the reason and origin for a number of complexes and psychological disorders. The abstract art itself in completion is a symbol of a unconscious symptom or state of mind, and in that case is a symbol of unconscious experience that includes material worth individual reflection. Think of abstract art more as a dream that has been fragmented into reality. Because of this being a symbol of an individual mind state, it becomes meaningful mostly to the artist and this is where the controversy begins to creep into its shadow. The problem is not abstract art but (in american society) the ignorance and naivety of mind which the majority is sadly plagued with. Most of the viewers that see great works likes Pollock’s (again) do not have the insight to be able to derive their individual experience of what the symbol represents to them, they just “like it” but they aren’t sure why, and it makes them feel strange. This is mostly due to the way american society has been conditioned. This naivety of the viewer can be shown as to why the media and advertising is so effective, it acts on an unconscious level and so you think “oh, I’m hungry” or “I’m thirsty” when you see a mcdonalds or coca cola advertisement. In saying that, the work itself should not be considered to be only meaningful to only the artist. Instead the purpose is to expand the awareness of the viewer to a higher state of consciousness. This, to me means that not only is abstract art, “art” (more like Abstract Surrealism art) but I feel that in this perspective, it has transcended the purpose of “Art” in evolution into something which has a much higher purpose then aethetics. Initiating the movement of unconscious processes through the visual system to be interpreted in individual perspective of total conscious system re-evaluation. Seems like a much more purposeful mission statement than communicating a particular message (which will only be interpreted in a limited number of ways as opposed to infinite).