Fun Stuff > MAKE
As abstract as you can stomach
Kelema:
Here's the great thing about abstraction:
While a traditional art piece may be technically perfect, often times it ignores the concepts of balance and composition in favor of merely photocopying real art. Once you strip away the "oooh and aah" of the technical skill of many art pieces, you will be left with, in essence, a horrible composition. This is not to say that ALL traditional art has awful composition, there are many masterpieces which have been created with careful attention towards concept and space. That's why they're masterpieces. But now, with many traditional artists merely replicating the same landscapes, flowers, and portraits that have been done a thousand times before, much current traditional art is hardly unique or conceptually interesting. With traditional art, one is (often) merely copying an object with hopes of, essentially, photocopying life onto a 2D plane. Abstract art must take these objects, actions, feelings, or thoughts, and communicate them by not just reproduction, but by EXPANDING upon the ideas.
Some abstract art is crap, and is just some guy drawing squares.
But some of it does go above and beyond and create a work which pulls from the viewer not just admiration for the technical skill or time invested, but an emotional (or sometimes, visceral) reaction.
Okay, so that's my two cents.
For one who may ask, or be all like "hurr hurr you only say these things because you can't draw hurr", I do both traditional AND abstract art, and either can be crappy or wonderful.
öde:
The only thing I like about Rothko is all the fuss he's caused/causing.
ekmesnz:
--- Quote from: Kelema on 14 Feb 2007, 09:54 ---Here's the great thing about abstraction:
While a traditional art piece may be technically perfect, often times it ignores the concepts of balance and composition in favor of merely photocopying real art. Once you strip away the "oooh and aah" of the technical skill of many art pieces, you will be left with, in essence, a horrible composition. This is not to say that ALL traditional art has awful composition, there are many masterpieces which have been created with careful attention towards concept and space. That's why they're masterpieces. But now, with many traditional artists merely replicating the same landscapes, flowers, and portraits that have been done a thousand times before, much current traditional art is hardly unique or conceptually interesting. With traditional art, one is (often) merely copying an object with hopes of, essentially, photocopying life onto a 2D plane. Abstract art must take these objects, actions, feelings, or thoughts, and communicate them by not just reproduction, but by EXPANDING upon the ideas.
Some abstract art is crap, and is just some guy drawing squares.
But some of it does go above and beyond and create a work which pulls from the viewer not just admiration for the technical skill or time invested, but an emotional (or sometimes, visceral) reaction.
Okay, so that's my two cents.
For one who may ask, or be all like "hurr hurr you only say these things because you can't draw hurr", I do both traditional AND abstract art, and either can be crappy or wonderful.
--- End quote ---
I think the instances in which composition was sacrificed for the sake of realism are few and far between since composition is one of the most fundamental concerns of art. For instance, take the Mannerists, who sought to display their viruousity by painting careful compositions of the human form.
That is not to say that bad traditional art does not exist. Of course it does.
bujiatang:
I was in the MN Institute of Art a couple weeks ago looking at the fourth floor. Not the parque, we just walked the fourth floor. And there was a Dutch still life with all the food being slightly rotten. After seeing a dozen bowls of fruit it was refreshing.
I am terrible with names, which is hardly an excuse, but I was intrigued by the aluminum block they also had with the red tube set into the top of it.
It did not evoke an emotional response from me, but what it did do was make me think about the definition of art. Is it a diliberate manipulation of materials? Or is it the expression of something more specific. I love how pregnant Lichtenstein's panels are, and how Calder simplified forms with wire.
Krog's work always seemed to have a bit of anger in them, and Munch's work dark. What annoys me is that reproductions of Munch usually are cropped. The Scream is supposed to have a red piece of wood attached to the side of the canvas. My point might better be, the scale of paintings also effects the affect. I don't like Mattice's The Dance, but standing under it is very different from seeing it in a textbook. It seems someone or other usually puts some editorial twist on the work when it is photographed and reprinted.
Off the top of my head, wasn't it Aristotle that discussed the proper aestetic distance for appreciating art...
I agree with Kelema about technicality not making something great. The Gonzaga Cameo comes to mind. A piece the size of a salad plate, carved in three layers from Sardonyx, it is by far the most amazing cameo the world will ever see. It has refereces to greek culture, it has a distinct political intent, but... I wouldn't say it is attractive. I appreciate the quality of the person who produced it, but ... Its a cameo. My mind just friezes.
ekmesnz:
Interesting. Art can be many things.
By the way, "Den Mann ist was er isst." is kind of nonsensical. Your first article should be in the nominative case: "Der Mann ist was er isst."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version