Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
I would love your thoughts ...
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
Hi Ellen, One of the reasons I ummed and aahed about posting was I didn't want it to be a figurative vs abstract discussion as ther is plenty of room for both! I guess what got on my nerves was the idea of weaning people off figurative art, somehow as if abstract art is more rewarding. I think there is much to be learnt from looking at all art. I really appreciate your thoughts, as I mentioned in my original post, this has made me look at my own prejudices and want to investigate abstract art more. I will probably be useless at it, but the theory of it has got to help somewhere I would hope!! As I mentioned earlier, in my opinion there should be room for good art of all styles. I loved your most recent posting on the gallery and I can easily see why your image posted here sold. As for understanding it, its not really necessary if the image is right. As I said, I have spent a good week untangling my prejudices and am really appreciative of all thoughts hence my original post. So thanks to you!!
Oh dear!…..I’m an abstract painter and the two works above have recently sold. The top one at the Nottingham Society of Artists exhibition, and the one below from an art fair. I am also represented by a gallery, and have had works sell, however, he has a variety of other work on show. The feedback I’ve had is that abstract art is coming back in vogue, therefore I daresay that galleries are wanting them. You don’t have to understand abstract paintings, mine are created by such things as climate change and shapes and shadows. It’s left to the viewer to decide what they see. I like works by Paul Klee, Rothko and De Stael. The top painting is called ‘Sea Defences’ and the bottom one is called ‘End of Day’.
Posted
Thanks for your reply Ellen - I was so worried I had insulted you!
It's interesting to think of art as a commodity to be dictated by the market, but I guess that's par for the course these days and ever has been!
I don't believe anyone can do abstract art and saying that is an insult to those of you who do it well. I can see it is as hard to attempt to get right as any style (if that's the word).
I actually fancy a go myself, it's all bubbling under at the minute, if I do produce anything and am feeling brave enough I may post it somewhere! As long as you don't laugh!!
Anyway, happy painting to you and best wishes - S x
Posted
"...National Park tourist town..... gallery owners want to wean locals and visitors off representational art, and into abstract...".Sounds potentially like a commercially influenced decision to me. I know a couple of galleries, in a national park, where they feel they have to continue to represent the typical paintings of that national park's landscapes and well known landmarks, because that what visitors 'came to see' and want reminded of. (Maybe they're tired of keeping to similar works and want to venture into new (for them) things?). Shame they feel the need to 'wean'. And as for feelings, if they don't appreciate that art expressing or depicting the external world evokes feelings, one wonders why they think their work sells. Don't most viewers buy because of a feeling?
Posted
Not a scientific survey by any means but our exhibition in Melton Mowbray has sold 73 pictures so far and about a quarter have been abstracts to three quarters realistic scenes. People buying the abstract pictures often comment on where they are going to hang whereas with the others it is the subject that matters the most. Some have been framed and others not so that doesn't seem to matter.
Posted
I think gallery owners should show works representational of their area and place. I also think they should explore the range of different styles art has to offer and show a good range. You can't move forward staying static and a gallery should have something to muster interest in everyone who walks through the front door. I can see how the word, "wean" is of an annoyance as it implies people don't have the autonomy to make their own decisions and are herded towards a certain style of painting. People at the end of the day buy what appeals to them most.
Edited
by Denise Cat
Posted
I've really enjoyed reading your views/feelings on this. I guess I was alarmed at figurative paintings being elbowed out (though it's only one gallery in one place) because I know I like seeing a variety of work when I visit places. I disliked the element of 'weaning' which some of you have picked up on! I don't like the idea of someone being judgemental of somebody else's taste, and I would hate to think of talented artists missing out because of that. I actually think the best way to introduce abstract art to an unwilling audience is by mixing it with more traditional stuff and interest would naturally occur in those who were interested.
Anyway, thanks for reading and responding!
Posted
This is turning into a very interesting discussion. I went to the National Gallery in Edinburgh twice last week and saw two exhibitions. The first was about 200 prizewinning and commended paintings by art-school trained artists, mostly representational but some abstract. I think I liked about a dozen of them, maybe one or two being abstract. The second was of work by internationally well-known artists and was very 'modern' and mostly abstract. Some of them were priced in the thousands of pounds. I didn't like any of them. I got the same sense you did, Sarah, that the gallery was pushing 'high' art at the expense of the kind of art most people actually like and buy and it reaffirmed my own feeling that either I wasn't artistically sophisticated enough to appreciate what they were offering the public and that they were trying to educate us, or that art snobbery is still alive and well and that as long as you can speak the language and keep up the pretence you can enter their elite world.
I think the truth is in between though. Where there's room for creativity there's room for artistic expression. I think the reason I'm suspicious of abstract art in general is that there is too much freedom allowed and no room for painting skill. If there are no rules, there is no way to tell whether a child or a master did the painting. It's chaos rather than creativity, which needs a language to be properly communicated. In contrast, with hyperrealism it's all skill and no freedom of expression. So at either end of the scale from hyperrealism to abstract, it's difficult to discern where the art is. The art I like, and I suspect most art lovers appreciate, falls in between. Impressionism is a good example. The impressionists had great skill but the level of detail was often no more than was required to communicate the impression they were trying to convey (please correct me if I'm wrong here - I'm no art student). Keeping detail to a minimum maximises the expressive potential.
It's the same in classical music. To write traditional classical music a composer needs to know scales, sonata form, chord progressions, four part harmony, etc. But modern composers often abandon it and create discordant music or apply aleatoric (random) techniques. The result can be like an abstract artwork and is only appreciated by a few cognoscenti. I think the musical equivalent of the blank canvas somebody (can't remember who) created is John Cage's 4'33", which is silence for that period of time and no more music than the blank canvas is art. They are both just statements, signs that an end point had been reached in musical and artistic awareness, and they could only be made once.
So my own feeling is that art galleries should stop trying to educate us and cater to public taste, which includes all art, from hyperrealism and pop art to abstract and everything in between. Nobody enters a gallery unless they love art anyway but being pushed in the direction of greater artistic awareness leads to a push back and lower attendance figures. People grow in awareness at their own pace and the best way to allow that is to give art lovers as much choice as possible.