-
-
Copy & paste this:
-
Latest Comments
natalie on Top 10 Read Books Spincycle on Robb Stark 2012 natalie on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… greyspot00 on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… greyspot00 on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… Poptart on Strange Facts About Our Feline… Somanynamestochoosef… on It’s the Only State They… Ldude893 on A Roller Coaster of Feels Dexaan on Strange Facts About Our Feline… Master of all that f… on Sorry I Didn’t Pick Up o… Master of all that f… on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… guatemalan boy on The Sovereign Nation of F… OleJ on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… moarqq on Not Sure If I Should Try to Co… alyssa on Sorry I Didn’t Pick Up o… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
SO true! Great job!
My handwriting is abstract art. Only the artist knows what it means (and even he has to guess from time to time).
When every letter looks like five others of the alphabet, handwriting can be considered abstract art, since you need analyze carefully to understand the meaning.
Interpretation is usually colored by the viewers’ personal experiences, too…
Agreed! 4 years of Visual Arts undergrad…
It’s usually the artists who make abstract art but don’t call their art abstract who do the good stuff.
I actually think they are one and the same.
yeah, this should for sure be a Venn diagram.
Nah. Just go ahead and spare yourself some lead and make it just one circle.
See that a lot with anime art too. You get middle schoolers who draw melted faces and stick limbs, and get angry when people mention it. “butt iz aneemay!” No, it sucks. L2 draw, “anime” is not a synonym for “sucks”.
wow… +10 internetz. You are a true visionary.
as an art student all i have to say is that the sad part of this is that it is totally true
Why is there even a green section…?
Thanks for the constructive criticism. Asshole.
“Abstract” is most often a bs term used by people who have no concept of art in any way, shape or form. Two-dimensional gallery or museum-type art has two basic alleys: Representational and Nonrepresentational. The former contains subject matter and the latter does not. The latter is also what most of the previously-mentioned folks would refer to as “abstract”, which is nearly 100% incorrect. Abstraction has a much stronger hold in the representational world. An artist must first understand his subject matter before he can create an abstract view of it. An excellent example of abstract art would be anything from Picasso’s cubist period. Good examples of nonrepresentational art would be most work by Franz Kline and Mark Rothko. These artists showed that color, composition and the media itself are all that is needed to create successful works. Another artist’s work to look at would be that of Willem de Kooning, who blurred the line between the two approaches like none other. So some of you are correct on one point. During my appropriate periods, I only referred to my work as “large, nonrepresentational, expressionist oils”. Never called ‘em abstract. Of course, by dictionary standards, “abstract” can be used to refer to any work that isn’t pure realism. I think the word fell out of favor with artists because of what I explained in the first sentence of this rather long post.
Precisely. Which is why i don’t understand why Pollock and Rothko etc were referred to as abstract expressionists. Expressionist, yes, abstract no. But they didn’t pick the name, so you can’t blame them.
Well, let’s see: They deliberately tried to stray from any physical representationalism; and IT IS ABSTRACT. Words are abstract ways of expressing thoughts and many other things, just as pictures are abstracts of reality, as reality is in 3 dimensions and photos in 2. Also, previous expressionism was aligned with representations of the physical world. Thus, the abstract expressionists were classified as such for their contrast with “regular” expressionists. We are simply too far removed from that time to realize this; especially us art students, who are very young and usually ignorant to the past, and all its nuances in culture and art.
tl:dr
Apologies np, but even your explanation screams to me that no matter what one calls “abstract” art it seems to only “be” art because someone says it is so. (And hey, if that’s your thing and if you can sell it and make a living more power to ya!!! )
But in my world, I cannot stand Rothko et al!!!! Ugh! You can yip-yap about it all you want. You can spew all the ideas and concepts about study of figure and line and texture and emotion and how its expressed, not expressed, spaced, not spaced, composed or not composed and I could come up with and endless stream of art buzzwords/concepts… but in the end it’s a giant blue square on top of a giant brown one! It’s crap!
Yes, I have a degree in art.
Yes, I got into a lot of arguments with a lot of folks about so-called “abstract” or whatever art. People have made compelling arguments. My mind is not changed one iota.
Let me put my argument this way: I drop a huge canvas on the floor. I drop my hairy naked fat butt in various colored paints and fart around the canvas for 10 minutes and suddenly I have an “abstract” (or whatever) image on a canvas. I toss it in a nice frame hang it on a wall and then write a glowing review of how it’s part of my “inner angry child emotional period of non-representational are where I delved into a dark side of my ego. A dark side of, well, man, really, where I didn’t want to go but felt I had to go. I felt I had to say something about anger and madness. It’s not fair that those that suffer do not have a voice. That they cannot express themselves like the rest of us do. I just wanted to bring “awareness”. I just wanted people to know. That’s why I have the dramatic lines and textures. It’s amazing what some of the greats did with a simple line and I wanted to try and capture some of that emotion. In this particular piece I felt I did just that.” To me, I don’t buy the concept of non-representational art because it always feels like a con.
No, they don’t need know about my now colorful hairy naked butt as long as their check doesn’t bounce.
Now I know why my painting smells like old cheese…..
Went to college with many people like you. Could never figure out why any of them were art majors. There was a girl who spent an entire semester of intermediate oil painting working on Pennsylvania-Dutchesque designs with her 1/16″ brush. She yelled something like “but I hate it” at our very well respected professor when he politely suggested she work on something with far fewer constraints. And then there was the guy who spent the whole same semester in the corner with his gessoed door that had a photo of a train engine taped on the corner. His goal? To create a realistic-as-possible enlargement of the photo in paint. I believe at the end of the semester he was about 8% done. The guy completely ignored the class, the professor, the live model we had most weeks… Very disrespectful. Sigh. But at least they weren’t creating anything abstract. phew! I trust you also only appreciate music that fits the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus mold and that anything approaching unstructured, free or atonal would be considered similarly to abstract art.
3rd reason: They think it is, but really have no idea what REAL abstract art is.
ahh, the problem of artist vs. critic; creation vs deconstruction. the motives, approaches and themes are so very very different.
A critic may analyse a beautiful landscape and remark on how it represents the ideals of perfection of nature. The painter, on the other hand did it because he was hired by a patron, and has an addiction to eating.
I wrote my dissertation on approaches to originality in art. Performance artists I find tend to take the “what is art” debate to the extreme. They’ll claim that taking a shit is in essence “art” if they can get an audience to watch while they do it.