I would love your thoughts ...

Hi all, I am fairly new to the forum so forgive any rambling! I would love your thoughts on something that has been niggling away for a week or so, and you are the only painters that I 'know' (even though I hardly do!) I think I need to vent!!  I met up with an old friend and ex colleague recently and since lockdown she has taken up painting abstracts. She has had quite a bit of success, selling a few paintings and has a solo show coming up later this year. She had previously shown no interest in art, so it's pretty amazing stuff really. The gallery where she has her show is in a National Park tourist town. She said that the gallery owners want to wean locals and visitors off representational art, and into abstract, particularly those works which were about feelings rather than the external world. I am sure I am being over sensitive but this annoyed the heck out of me! Of course gallery owners can put what they like on their walls, also I am a big fan of abstract art, even though I can't always pretend to understand it. What got to me was the assumption that abstract art is more worthy than representational or figurative art. I can't agree, but maybe I am letting my prejudices (and possibly a bit of jealousy, though I hate to admit it!) get in the way. I think all good art is worthy of attention.  I think I felt uncomfortable with the idea that people need weaning off pictures of 'things'. Sorry for such a long post, I hope it makes some sense, and thanks for reading! I respect your views, there is a lot of talent and experience on this site and as someone for whom art is a solitary experience, it's quite a comfort! Thanks all, Sarah  PS no offence to any abstract painters, this has made me take an extra interest in abstract art, with a mind to having a go myself.

Well I can certainly understand your feelings, I personally think it’s wrong for anyone to think it’s their task in life to re-educate people and in my opinion that is  what the gallery owners are trying to do. It smacks of we know more about art than you do and we know what’s best for you , it’s difficult when it’s their business and the can sell what they want . This is similar in someways to the art critics who put down good paintings because it doesn’t fit into what they think is the in thing.  All art is good, no matter what it is or who painted it , even the very basic stuff that someone has worked hard to produce is worth of praise even if it not good enough for a gallery . The one thing I love about this site is that we get such a huge variety of abilities and styles and that’s important as we don’t all want to see the same style all the time. I’m not sure thst I’ve answered your question but I have enjoyed the rant and do agree with you . 

Paul - I am glad I am not going mad! Your reply was perfect - your opinion is exactly what I wanted! Thank you.

One persons priceless work of art is another persons pile of junk, and vice verse. Everyone has different tastes, and for a gallery to try to tell the public what they should and shouldn’t like is a bit wrong to me. Though I think their approach may backfire on them, as followers of any one genre are limited.  I like galleries that have a bit of everything. It keeps them interesting.

Hello Helen, Thanks for your thoughts - I agree completely!  I think there is so much to learn from different styles/ways of doing art. Thanks again for reading the rant!!

Thank you so much Lewis, that is really interesting.  Agree with everything you say, including being a Renoir fan. I must have come across Kline, but at first I thought of Yves Klein, who I watched a programme on a few years back. Not really my cup of tea - have a Google if you are not already aware of his talents! Thanks again, it's great hearing the thoughts of fellow art lovers.

I like some Rothko's - if the world "like" really conveys anything: my late mother's memoirs were peppered with the word "nice": I know what she meant, but it doesn't convey much, does it....?   Anyway - I respond to some Rothko's; let's put it in arty-speak - they resonate with me.....  Kline, on the other hand - well shall we just say he doesn't. Your friend's gallery is trying to define itself, for commercial rather than entirely aesthetic reasons, as a go-ahead, modern place to be - and so far as I'm concerned, it can sod right off....  it probably will, in the course of time.  I can quite understand the balancing of representational with abstract art - variety, choice, allowing the public to decide for itself which disciplines it most appreciates; but people might well appreciate all of them, abstract, figurative, photo-realistic, collaged, Impressionistic, classical, romantic, drawings, sculpture, pen and ink: what kind of gallery is it that promises to exclude one genre, or patronizingly wean people away from it?  Maybe it's a small space, in which there's no room for wide variety; maybe having too many styles on its walls would create some incongruity - I could understand that.   This, however, sounds like a decision made because the gallery owners are afraid of not being in the current swim - now there's a choice of words.   Apologies to them if they have more practical considerations - maybe you wouldn't put a Picasso next to a Renoir, at least not in close proximity.   Even so, I think your feelings are coming from a better place than theirs. 

Thank you Robert... the gallery is quite large I think quite a few representational artists are, er, represented there. But... sod right off... that made me laugh.  Thank you - I was hoping you would respond !