Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Abstract painting.
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Pier and Ocean is probably my favourite - I've just posted another abstract in the gallery if you want to take a look:
http://www.painters-online.co.uk/gallery/art-view,picture_209680.htm
Posted
I've been looking at the images posted, it's all very fascinating. I've commented on Michael's in the gallery, but I particularly like Daveyboyz's 'picture that started as a doodle.' This only adds to my uncertainty about the tags that are applied to paintings. 'Doodle' painting seems another genre that's growing, and not really my idea of what a doodle 'is'. But I like it, and do some myself. Daveyboyz's 'doodle' picture is an absolute cracker... whether it's a 'doodle' or an abstract'. (Here endeth the diversion into 'doodle-painting'...as this is an abstract thread).
Lew.
Posted
Being quite happy to admit that abstract art is somewhat baffling, I doubt if I'll ever produce anything truly abstract as I never start to paint with a totally blank mind. I love impressionism (which I see Sid's example as and also much admire as that is my preferred modus operandum) . This is an example of my confuson. I didn't start out to paint a ship, but a storm, and the ship (which may appear to some as just badly painted, but if I wanted to paint a ship I wouldn't do it this way) is just incindental to the over all mood of the work. Way I see it, ( and it is purely my view not any form of directive) unless I have something in mind I'm just pushing paint around. I suppose, like lots of my work it is some sort of mix of impression and abstract at times. As I said, somewhat baffling, even to me. I either like the result or I don't. That's my barometer. :hehe:
Is it abstract? (p.s. Wanderer 69 is just a handle. I'm Jim Morris...)
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
I agree with your views, Jim. Like you I have to have something in mind, however vague, that's why I'll never produce a true abstract. That said, I can't believe Abstract painters don't feel the same, but they are on a different radar to me. Thanks for telling us who Wanderer69 is, but posting your painting was a giveaway, it has your fingerprints all over it. I suspect purists would not call it abstract, maybe impressionistic is nearer the mark.
Lew.
Posted
Well I paint in both halves of the spectrum. When I paint abstracts I have an entirely different hat on to when I paint traditional watercolours. I never ever have an image in mind - I have (for want of a better definition) a pattern and a colour scheme - I think all the time in terms of colours, composition and balance. For example when I did the monotype I posted earlier I was continually lifting the paper to see how it was looking and where additional textures and marks would enhance it.
I have done a few demos on the techniques and it's surprising how many traditional artists who profess to have no interest in or wishes to paint abstracts get drawn in and see the excitement of seeing how a work develops and say they want to have a go. I do find them so much more exciting to produce than representational work.
Posted
I have never understood abstracts and I've said this before and perhaps if I took the time to study the formula for them I would understand more. The funny thing is though that Michael's abstracts do 'move' me if that's the right word, and I find them very interesting. His painting today had me thinking music straight away and I noticed that Marjorie felt the same. There seems to be more sense behind his work than other abstracts which seem to me like blobs of paint thrown willy nilly on the page.
Posted
No, Syd's right, we should have commented. When I read Syd's post I looked up the book, Amazon have it. The google search actually threw up a link to a POL forum piece on this book years ago. I did a image search on the artist. This is how I use the forum, if somebody throws up a reference (like Syd), I look it up...but don't always say I've done it. I should. In fact, this merely confirms my uncertainty about labels like 'abstract'...it seems they always have to be qualified. I thought 'realistic abstract' was just the name of the book, but it's another type of abstract art. One I can relate to, I might add.
Posted
Yes Syd, in my google search on the artist it threw up a great number of fascinating works. Realistic Abstracts are more approachable for someone like me, who doesn't always 'get' abstraction. But I don't like to dismiss any form of art, I sometimes find individual paintings do spark my interest. ( I think this is true of all genres...in principal I admire Impressionism, but there are many individual paintings I don't like at all.) I referred to an artist called Brutsky, whose work I like, he doesn't apply any tags to his art...but I think he edges more to Realistic Abstraction.
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2