Fun Stuff > MAKE
As abstract as you can stomach
quietnow:
<3 expressionism
ekmesnz:
Most abstract art is valid and meaningful. If you ever take a survey course (i.e. the history of) in Western art, all the way from 3000 BCE to the present, when the teacher FINALLY gets to Modernism and Post-Modernism, you will understand. A thousand angels will descend from heaven, there will be singing, and you will say, "I get it!"
Unfortunately, few people have the mettle or the resources to do such a thing. As a result, I'll try for a simpler explanation:
Aesthetic simplicity is not the same thing as technical inferiority. That is, some of the greatest paintings in the world are Chinese ink-on-paper zen drawings of one or two strokes, yet they are proportionally and emotionally some of the most perfect things in the world. The (imho) greatest painting of the 20th Century, Constantin Malevich's _White on White_ (you can Google it), is just a white square, yet it is artistically equal to thousands that have come before it. Why? Not because he did it first, but because like all paintings, there are emotional and technical reasons he did what he did, and his painting successfully communicates those subconscious reasons to the viewer.
(I'm an Art History major. Could you tell?)
neek:
My art appreciation course covered it. Well, some of it. I have to take it again, though. Not satisfied with a grade of F, quite frankly. So far, it seems that not everyone will get the message of the art piece. And that the line between bullshit and art is quite, quite thin.
kallisti:
--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 15 Dec 2006, 10:18 --- The (imho) greatest painting of the 20th Century, Constantin Malevich's _White on White_ (you can Google it), is just a white square, yet it is artistically equal to thousands that have come before it. Why? Not because he did it first, but because like all paintings, there are emotional and technical reasons he did what he did, and his painting successfully communicates those subconscious reasons to the viewer.
(I'm an Art History major. Could you tell?)
--- End quote ---
Does it successfully communicate said subconscious reasons to the viewer if he/she has not read up on them?
I've just googled it and I think I like it. I find it visually pleasing, but it doesn't say anything to me yet. If it only says something to me after I read what he thought it was supposed to say, or what other people think it says, I don't know if I consider that a successful communication.
That said, Rothko touches a weird chord in me but I've spent more time looking at his stuff so maybe I just need to stare at "White on White" for awhile.
The thing about most of the abstract expressionist stuff is that, at least as far as my studies have indicated, they were going for completely emotional responses to aesthetics. No symbols, no figures, just a gut reaction to an aesthetic arrangement of color and shape and whatnot. This is, of course, debatable as just about anything in art tends to be.
I'm not an art history major myself, but I did just study Pollock and Rothko and DeKooning and others and the like in a class and I'm considering a minor in art history to go with my Communications major.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: kallisti on 15 Dec 2006, 22:43 ---Does it successfully communicate said subconscious reasons to the viewer if he/she has not read up on them?
I've just googled it and I think I like it. I find it visually pleasing, but it doesn't say anything to me yet. If it only says something to me after I read what he thought it was supposed to say, or what other people think it says, I don't know if I consider that a successful communication.
That said, Rothko touches a weird chord in me but I've spent more time looking at his stuff so maybe I just need to stare at "White on White" for awhile.
The thing about most of the abstract expressionist stuff is that, at least as far as my studies have indicated, they were going for completely emotional responses to aesthetics. No symbols, no figures, just a gut reaction to an aesthetic arrangement of color and shape and whatnot. This is, of course, debatable as just about anything in art tends to be.
I'm not an art history major myself, but I did just study Pollock and Rothko and DeKooning and others and the like in a class and I'm considering a minor in art history to go with my Communications major.
--- End quote ---
Malevich was a member of a movement he founded called Suprematism. Suprematism, White on White especially, was founded on the principle that viewing its artwork required no cultural context or outside knowledge. Since Art History has been dominated in the Western world by Christian iconography and other themes that play off of historical and cultural concepts (as is natural in art), viewing artwork inherently requires some knowledge of the culture or time. According to Malevich, his work is the greatest common denominator among all men--reduced to abstract shapes and colors, the emotional response is pure and unfettered by context. In other words, yes: the very idea is that you need not read up on Malevich to "get" his work.
Rothko is wonderful. Hard to find people who agree with me there, though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version