>>2344146 That's not abstract art, it's non-representational art. Abstraction is the alteration of real life subject matter, usually by omitting or exaggerating features and details of the subject. The art shown in the OP image isn't based on any particular real object, meaning it's not meant to represent concrete objects and serve as an illustration, therefore it actually falls under the category of non-representational art.
>>2344215 Incorrect. Picasso's work is considered abstract because the subject matter was still based on recognizable subjects, such as people, animals, and household objects. The type of art shown here is not meant to represent any recognizable subject matter, which is why it's called non-representational art. Calling this category of art abstract art is a common misnomer, much like referring to dissociative identity disorder as schizophrenia.
>>2344875 >>2344837 Instead of being pretentious. Why don't you explain why abstract art is hard, and why it has any merit since it seems to the majority of people that it is much harder to paint an accurate portrait of a person than to make 'abstract' art.
but the reason why other forms of art, away from natural representation, take more effort is because a lot more thinking is involved. It's like the difference between annotating and writing poetry.
When you annotate, you basically summarize the facts. You re-give what is already given, except you change it into a more shortened form. Drawing realisticlly is the same, you're just drawing what you see in a realistic stylization
Writing poetry takes imagination and cleverness. With poetry youre doing more than representing facts. So doing something like abstract painting youre doing more than naturalism. Poetry, good quality poetry, takes effort, more effort than writing say a book report (which what realistic drawing is more like)
in sport, feats are ranked by difficulty there are easy targets to hit and hard targets to hit. It is generally agreed upon that accomplishing a difficult feat merits respect.
abstract painting is the same. there is both low-hanging and treetop fruit.
Not all abstract painting attempts to convey emotion, or mood, but some do, and among those that do there are easy feats and difficult feats. Some feelings are more subtle or difficult than others. Some feelings are presented by the artist in an especially subtle or clever way. It's hard to even talk about this stuff with art though, because people do so many different things with art. It's not like sport where there's objective goals and rankings.
>>2345208 >but the reason why other forms of art, away from natural representation, take more effort is because a lot more thinking is involved. It's like the difference between annotating and writing poetry.
>>2345243 >>2345408 If you read your art history, you'd remember during the 15th century painting was argued to be like poetry so as to lift the status of artists with those with liberal arts education. (That's how geometry and music become dominant in making paintings) Before painters were considered like artisans and thier work was deemed as what we would think today as craft or ornamentation. The analogy is old it's just that naive kids are to full of themselves to learn about it.
>>2344861 The context the word has been given in the art world is incorrect. People have come to incorrectly associate the word abstract with non-representational, most likely because extremely abstracted works can very much resemble non representational art when the forms are so abstractly represented that they're near unrecognizeable. However, the word abstract has a defined meaning, and being based on something real or concrete is simply built into the meaning of the word. All I'm asking is that you use the correct label for the type of art that you're discussing, and this is not abstract art, it's non-representational art. Using the correct name for it negates the need for this discussion though, because drafting ability is negligible in a category where the art doesn't need to convey any real subjects.
Abstract shit is hard, because you have a ton less to work with. Lets take this still life. With a realist/stylized scene, when you can create the general forms and colours as seen and the final interpretation will be pretty easily recognizable as an apple. Making that apple look real or stylizing it well is a matter of technique, but once it's in the ballpark of looking like an apple, the mind carries it away to look like an apple.
>http://images.pcworld.com/news/graphics/173131-apple-woolworths-logo_original.jpg With an abstract this is a bit harder. Lets start with the representational / highly stylized apple on the right, even though this is /gd/ material. Why is this bunch of forms bringing us to an apple and not to an Arbys curly fry? The colour palette is one we see primarily in regard to fruits, the shape is semi similar to a apple and there is even a negative space for a core. This could be a green tomato, but it evokes the vibes of a green apple. If you had never seen a green apple, you would not make this jump. The mind lets the abstract be appreciated as more then images. However there is much less play here to trigger this evocation of feeling, the colours must be correct to reality, the shapes semi-coherent.
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UmR76h0H6dg/VoL-ghLMywI/AAAAAAAAHk8/PnMhgjtxyT8/s1600/20151216_141356.jpg Alright full abstract mode. Tape resists and colour choice with flat planes. This abstract does not evoke feelings of a apple for me, the navy is too detracting. But the texture does give a crunch to the painting. Now with fucking apples on the brain, some of those central forms look leaf-esque. With a modified colour palette this could bring forth the experience of eating an apple. But the colours must be dead on, the simplified forms precisely placed and a decent understanding of what triggers the experience.
Now I have not even touched on the contrasts of rhythm, shape, form, texture, etc.
It's a little shocking to find that 4chan's art board doesn't understand/appreciate abstract art, when /lit/ is nothing but absurdism and /mu/ is avant garde. /fa/ too. Sometimes this board is odd to me. On the same note, /ck/ is half and half world class cuisine and kraft singles. Odd world.
>>2345523 In the "art world" abstraction must derive from an original point based in reality/observation non-representational work lacks a referent
(this division is complicated by the concept that any painting is a representation of another phenomenon; for example pollock's painting here being a collection of marks representative of gestures his body made as it moved around the canvas)
>>2345979 It's not to say that non-representational art doesn't represent anything at all, just that the art as presented is not meant to represent, in this case the word represent meaning to visually convey the forms of physical objects. In this way we can separate the art into the categories of illustrative or expressive. Abstract art can be expressive, but non-representational art cannot be illustrative, since to illustrate a subject would be to represent it, which is mutually exclusive to non-representationalism. So while non-representational art can indeed still "represent" the motions of the artist or the artist's feelings or some other vague concept, it is not art that acts to represent as a symbol or illustration of tangible subject matter. This is the distinction between abstract art and non-representational art.
It's pretty simple why modern and abstract art don't work. It's hard to appreciate art if you don't have respect for the artist, and I mean on the most basic of form, without even knowing their name and status.
When you take hyper realism (which is ridiculed in this thread for being a purely technical skill) and abstract (which is purely emotive, because if they aren't, as you argued, then they lose any substance), then classical art the the soft spot between the two, various genres closing in on the both sides of the spectrum.
When you take a crowd of people to a Modern art museum, the top three scenarios that happen are: > "What is this?" > Ridiculing the pretentious title of the art piece > Different variations of the "Even I could do this, even my kid could do this, even my retarded cousin could do this" Any deeper meaning, any artist's intention is lost within the severe lack of respect.
Take the same group of people to the classical art gallery/museum and their reactions are completely different.
>>2346243 >Take the same group of people to the classical art gallery/museum and their reactions are completely different.
>my feet hurt >why does everyone look upset >their feet must hurt too >i know that feel >they want 2b@ home playing gaems 2 >wtf that aint no flute bitch >dis bitch think she jimi hendrix wit dat gay ass horn
looking at history you can see that there was a feud between traiditonalists and people who wanted to push the limit a bit more forwards
uneducated people mistake neoclassics with romanticists, even impressionists
what happened was that the new movement always collided, but after a time it became part and changed the art definition. if neoclassics saw Ingres' Odalisque's back they'd go apeshit
as time went on the limits went even further away, romanticists went pushed further than Ingres with the treatment of atmosphere disregarding perspective and proportions. impressionists changing the way paintings were made, not using black at all, pointillism or outright shapes. even a pre-impressionist like manet with his lunch in the park was out of this world for everyone else. I could keep naming examples but you can see the point, looking backwards it may seem all the same, but it's not
after impressionists -even some of them like turner- went even crazier and away from anything figurative, people kept doing their own studies on how to break out from this in their own way, like cezanne, van gogh, kandinsky, kirchner, and so on
the tendency has always been the same and you could argue that non-charlatans are still connected to reality by a string
my personal opinion is that impressionists were the ones who finally solved the issue in a pictoric way, vanguardists are pushing for what's left
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.