Fun Stuff > MAKE

As abstract as you can stomach

(1/18) > >>

neek:
Anyone ever just look at non-objective abstract art and wonder, what sort of bullshit are they pulling? I don't mean the obvious hacked attempts at being "deep"--you know, the balled up A1 drawing paper or the white canvas painted white. I mean, things that look like someone put effort into, but it's confusing as to how much. Or if the meaning you're getting is "intentional."

When I produce abstract art, I generally produce it as a satire of it (cf. candy wrapper bondage i or the plague), though some abstract art is a serious attempt at self-expression (cf. guilt or the leash). Ultimately, however, I cannot but help satire this artform. But that's perhaps I haven't seen anything good come out of this in a LONG while. Does anyone even have an appreciation of abstraction? Discuss.

mberan42:

--- Quote from: neek on 04 Dec 2006, 23:32 --- or the white canvas painted white.
--- End quote ---

My 2nd favourite play is Art by Yazmine Reza. Discusses this completely.

Will:
Kurt Vonnegut's book "Bluebeard" hits on this a little bit, if I recall correctly.  I may be wrong, but I believe he was the one that mentioned the whole notion that in modern art, you don't have to be the best at doing something, just the first?  For example, the only person who really gets any artistic credit for, say, a white-paint-on-white-canvas painting would be the person that first did it; all others would just then be copying it?

I also liked one of the characters in Chuck Palahniuk's novel "Diary;" she talks about how in her art classes, everyone was trying so hard to be abstract and post-modern that the only real way to 'rebel' against the standard expectations was to paint 'typical' still-lifes and the like.

I'm not much of an artist though, and I usually don't know what the hell I am talking about.  I just know that at LEAST 50% of the time, modern art makes me feel fucking dumb.

Cernunnos:
The whole idea of the abstract expressionist movement is found in two things (though not exclusively): first, the persona of the artist and the process of making, and second, the experience of the material, paint, for its own sake. Jackson pollock became famous not because of his paintings, though they were unique and had this strange optical quality, but because he embodied this exceedingly masculine, expressive, brooding persona that was captivating. the other reason abstract expressionism became popular, as i mentioned, was the paint itself. it's a gorgeous material, sumptuous, bright and beautiful. painters like Rothko and Pollock, and those who followed, found a way to make paint be only paint, and beautiful. a canvas painted white, on the other hand, straddles a number of issues. some art, like John Cages' 4.33 and Duchamps "fountain", and alot of what Beuys did were important simply because they challenged what art was. the white canvas is supposed to be a challenge to the conventions of art, be it ironic or not.
is is bullshit? not quite, but it has gone very much out of favor in the past few years, for a few notable reasons. first, the abstract expressionists were often drunken, misogynist assholes(misogynist in that the style of painting was seen to be exclusively masculine). Pollock died in a drunk driving accident. Rothko committed suicide on finding he had both cirhossis of the liver(sp?) and lung cancer from smoking and drinking. so, it's okay to think theyr'e bullshit, so long as you know there was a seed of something important in there somewhere.

mberan42:
Also, apparently some genius' at Case Western Reserve figured out how to duplicate Jackson Pollack's works in photoshop... I'll link the article once I find it again.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page