Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Appreciation of Abstract Art
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
Message
Posted
This topic cropped up in another stream and I thought it worthy of a separate discussion. It followed on from a comment posted saying 'I don't really understand abstracts'.
For me the point is that you don't have to understand abstracts - it is up to the viewer to interpret them in any way the viewer wishes. This is the reason why I don't give my own abstracts meaningful titles. A meaningful title will lead the viewer down a particular path rather than allowing the viewer to interpret it in a way that is personal to him, if indeed they feel the need to interpret it at all.
I therefore give each of my works a single word title which has no meaning in the English Language (and probably not in any other language if it comes to that). If someone interprets an abstract as a say a cloudburst - good; if it is interpreted as an explosion of colour in the garden- great, if they don't want to interpret it and just like it for what it is - that's fine. It's so encouraging when people take the time to look at my efforts and I love the idea that they are studying it and making up their own minds. I recall the story of a gallery visitor saying how much she liked an abstract and when told it's title said that she wished she hadn't been told as it spoiled her interpretation of it.
In the other discussion Syd mentions patterns etc which is quite a coincidence as I recall an incident when a lady, at the opening of an abstract exhibition, told me she didn't like really like abstracts. I complimented her on her outfit and she agreed it was a lovely pattern. I then asked her why if she liked it as a pattern on her dress she wouldn't like it if it was in a frame. She thought about this and came back to me later saying that she was now viewing the exhibition through a different pair of eyes and was actually enjoying the work on display. A true storey which I have recited here somewhere on POL in the past and one of those encounters that will always stick with me.
Colours, shapes, composition, etc don't have to represent anything to appeal to the senses - just open your mind and enjoy them for what they are.
I wonder how others here on POL view abstracts and would love to hear (or read) their thoughts.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
Thanks Derek. I do sometimes take a peak at the nonsense word generator site when I'm trying to think up a title and whilst I have never actually used one of the words that appear there it has helped in getting the grey matter into gear and coming up with something.
The site by the way: http://soybomb.com/tricks/words/
ps Quick edit to say that I just clicked onto the link above to check that it's working okay and saw the lovely word 'drearable' - but on second thoughts perhaps not suitable for one of my abstracts - but I might use it in speech - a bit Professor Unwinish.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
Everyone's idea of " What is an abstract?" Is different. Some paintings on the Gallery call their work " abstract" and it's not etc etc. When I look at an abstract it has to appeal in some way - evoke a mood or lead me to appreciate pattern or movement. This is to sum it up briefly, clearly there are many things abstracts can do which a figurative work can't. Also, abstracts can " grow on you" as your mind continues to think about the image and they can be difficult and intricate - why shouldn't they make your mind work?
The abstracts I prefer seem to be related to colour or mood. For the former I like Paul Klee, for the latter, perhaps artists who are not wholly abstract but at a mid-way point ( some of Satu's work covers this ).
I also think there's a lot of work around which could come under the title " Emperor's New Clothes". A lot of bandwagons to be jumped on. In the end, you have to go with your own judgement as to whether a painting works, though sometimes it can be hard to put it into words.
And here I am, typing this when there's painting to be done! After coffee of course.
Posted
I have to agree with you Marjorie about the Emperor's new clothes. As an aside I use towels on which I work when doing the ink abstracts as I flood everywhere with water. As a result the towels have all sort of stains on them in a whole plethora of colours. I also keep a mount at hand which I constantly use when painting as I find it helps with determining composition, tones etc and gives you a good idea of what the work will look like when framed as you proceed.
Anyway when doing a demo a few weeks back I placed the mount on top of one of towels and the result was something else - it got lots of approval from the group and I thought 'If only I could replicate that on paper or board'.
Just to show - I don't know what - but it just goes to show!!
Posted
I must admit, I am one of those who has commented that I do not understand abstracts, I fully understand what is being said here, but I still feel I need to see and understand what I am looking at, maybe I have spent to many years on the mountains and generally loving the wild areas, or I am so blinkered I find it nearly impossible to change, just like in my art, who knows, but that does not stop me admiring those of you who can be so diverse in your art, it would be a very boring world if there was never any change.
Posted
I have found generally that artists sooner or later come round to a different kind of perception. They no longer see objects or places in terms of identification but as shapes and shape combinations. They have mastered the skills involved in portrayal of camera-like qualities they now regard this is only the first stage of their learning.
They then realise that the whole aspect that is lacking in centralised object portraiture is composition (design). The way that shapes and colours are arranged within the edges of the picture is the only thing that is apparent in a fully abstract painting with no recognisable objects in it.
It is then we begin to realise that good composition is a very necessary component to any form of two-dimensional art.
John
Posted
Dear Davide19,
I'm sorry you find my views pretentious and riddled with pompous jargon.
I only speak from personal experience and from reading of the views and experience of artists that I respect and admire.
For evidence I can only direct your attention to the opinions and the writings of the following:
John Ruskin, Henry Rankin Poore, Andrew Loomis, Frank Webb, Ian Roberts and Greg Albert.
If you would like to see my own work please go to the gallery and enter my name and those of others who have contributed to this thread, you may then measure our opinions against our work.
My best wishes.
John Kay
Posted
David I think took the post to mean that figurative work is a stage beyond which serious artists will invariably move, into abstraction. If that WAS what John's post actually meant, I wouldn't agree with it - you would first of all have to define "abstraction", to start with, and then come up against the problem that all art is an illusion of one kind or other: none of us is creating reality as such, though we might be seeking to reflect it; and reflecting it depends on the way we see things, which is different for all of us. If you want a bit of REALLY pretentious jargon, how about this - artists are the conduit through which reality is expressed...? I forget where I read that; I sort of see what it means, but I don't think it means much.
I think the post was actually much more to do with composition - which is John's major area of interest - than with abstraction; and that David has got angry with what he thought was meant. I can advise him, however, that John is not a pretentious or pompous man, and I do not believe he is saying that abstraction is or should be the ultimate aim of every artist. I can understand anger if that had been the point - it's not an aim of mine, though who knows where one will end up, if an actual end (other than extinction) is ever reached? - but I don't think it was.