Opinions needed

If a work even without discernible concrete shapes has any meaning to a viewer it is not an abstract art, or is it?

Abstract art covers a vast spectrum of different ideas and starting points - so a simple definitive answer isn't possible.

All art abstracts to a degree - it changes a 3D world into a 2D one and deals with illusion.

Art classified as abstract may have a figurative beginning as with Picasso or Diebenkorn or be purely about colour, marks and paint as with Rothko.

yes it can have meaning without any discernible form - it can show emotion, mood etc purely with colour and marks - look at Mondrian's Broadway Boogie Woogie

Maggie Hambling did a series of non-figurative abstracts based on different kinds of laughter but I've been unable to find them on the net.

Opinions needed
Hi, Ganja, and welome to A2K. Hope you like it here.

About your question - one thing that bothers me about abstract art is the attitude of many abstract painters who seem to consider that if a viewer needs an explanation of a work, it's the viewer's lack of insight that is the problem.

Back in the days when art was a principal method of communication because most people were illiterate, there was a wide variety of symbolism which artists could work into their paintings. These symbols were familiar to the public, and explanations weren't needed.

Today any symbolism is likely to be psychological, and not always clear even to the artist. This makes for good debate on the meaning and point of any given serious work of art, but not for any easy agreement among critics. In other words, symbolism in Renaissance art, for example, was objective, while today's symbols are subjective and, thus, very slippery.

As for the charm you refer to - well, I happen to like asymmetrical work; my paintings are generally balanced only in the most subtle ways, if they are balanced at all. But only a shrink could tell you whether the imbalance has a decipherable meaning - and even then there would be a pretty wide area of interpretation.

Hi, Ganja -- and welcome to A2K.

I wouldn't say that figurative or objective art is symmetrical -- the compostion usually strives to be asymmetrical. Often abstract art is symmetrical as in the minimalists and optical art. I really don't believe any art delivers a "point." One looks at a landscape and gets a mood and inspiration from it that may or may not be exactly as the artist intended. If it is a great painting, it is ambiguous about any message or "point."

An abstract painter through accentuating the act of painting in action or gestural strokes as in the abstract expressionist genre is describing a mental picture in only color, light, shape and form. It's not bound by anything objective but can allude to something objective as in De Kooning's woman series.

I don't believe any great abstract painter is in the least concerned about those who don't understand the art. It's like those who don't appreciate jazz because of all the improvisation and playfullness with a melodic line. The jazz musicians are concentrating on the act of creating music while referring minimally to a written score. The abstract painters basically do the same -- there's litte or no reference to any image of reality.

It's also really not much different that someone tasting their first martini and either liking it, eventually learning that they like it, or gagging at even the scent. One man's meat is another man's poison. Pretty simple, really.

BTW, abstract art also pretty much does away with delineation using lines. The forms are not drawn.

I think abstract art - the kind I think you're talking about - is very interesting, because different colors and shapes appeals to different people - as does all art, but is different from classical, modern, or expressionist art works. My taste in art excludes 'abstract art' about 95 percent of the time, because it has very little meaning for me. If the color and design is just right, I might have some attraction to it, but it happens very few times - even in great art galleries. Picasso also does abstract art, but he also does the classical form of art where the object is discernable. I like about 30 percent of Picasso's works, but I know people that love his art 100 percent of the time.

Well, c.i., I can see I'm going to have to shake up about a half gallon of Bombay Sapphire Martinis and syphon them down your throat! Then you'll appreciate them.

Opinions needed
Ganja - you might be interested in another thread, "Perfection". Your question sparked a question of my own which is having a really good bunch of responses.

So thank you very much for the inspiration!

LW, Perhaps.

It's Sunday morning, c.i., so I'm glad you said perhaps. Either I should mix up a batch of Bloody Marys or tell you where the nearest AA meeting is located.

I need Affirmative Action like I need bloody Mary's. Virgins are nice, but.......

Oh, cute -- I really mean triple A:

Afirmative Action Anonymous

wow thanks to all of you, to be honest, I didnt expect much replies. But that certainly clears things up.
I personally paint for myself, and dont expect the viewer to always get my hidden messages (if there are any). And there are 2 types of viewers. The normal guy with no artistic background, and he would probably say something like 'yeah nice colors, you're one great artist' and that would be good for my ego ...
and the 2nd type would be another artist, and he would say something like 'oh you need to work on your strokes, and the painting seems to lack a certain ...' .. and THAT would be good feedback!

And thanks TomKitten, I checked your thread 'perfection', it was really good!

art
As an "abstract" artist--and as I've said somewhere else--I usually start with some vague aesthetic notion but more often than not as the painting evolves vague representational forms begin to suggest themselves,and if they have emotional value for me I tend to follow their lead even giving acknowledgement to them during the painting process with a tentative title. I am more focused on the aesthetic form(s), than any emerging representational content, but as Meyer Shapiro said: in abstract art "form is the work's content." In my case--as suggested by the sentence before last-- that's only partly true. I went to some galleries the other day and enjoyed the works of an abstract painter--Gary Barton, of Utah. It saddened me momentarily that my works are not as "attractive" as his, less likely to have decorative value for a residential wall. But when I got home and looked at my works, I was relieved. They were not as aesthetically attractive, not as "beautiful" as Barton's, but mine (as should be no surprise to anyone) "spoke" to me while Barton's only entertained me. My work is not better than his, far from it; I wish I could be as decorativeley effect as he. But the experience affirmed my sense of The Aesthetic as more complex than simple beauty in the sense of "prettiness", "attractiveness", or "decorativeness". I hope that most of my stuff has SOME of these traits, but that is not enough. Thanks for the opportunity to express this Ganja, and WELCOME to A2K.

Re: art



Yes yes yes!!! some abstract art is very attractive, makes great living room decorations but is not at all sustaining. Yours sounds as though it is, with more depth.

I'd love to see some?????

Ganja,

Welcome!

Very interesting question.

When you ask if, "Do you think abstract art is supposed to deliver a point to the viewer, or is the fact that it isnt perfectly clear and symmetrical part of the charm ?

These are two different, very seperate question. Do you not agree?

When you ask, "Do you think abstract art is supposed to deliver a point to the viewer?", one must then assume that a message is intended for the viewer. Perhaps, the abstract art is simply an interpretation, an abstract mean of expressing oneself, in an abstract method, simply for the exercise, the enjoyment the letting go of angst, expressing joy, painting for the sake of painint, or any number of reasons?

Then, could it be said, that a potential viewer is not even a passing thought , while the piece is being created, being made. Could the last sentence be a statement? That is possible. If so, then...would it void out the viewers participation in the creation of the piece?

Your second question, "or is the fact that it isn't perfectly clear and symmetrical part of the charm", stand as a truth on its own merit ?, without involving the first question?
Must go.

fatima10

....To continue......"or is the fact that it isnt perfectly clear and symmetrical part of the charm ?"

I question the placement of the meaning of "or". In this manner. Regardles of the painter or the viewer, is it not possible that your second question, stand as a statement of fact, on its own?

I do not believe that it is a mutually exclusive or a mutually inclusive matter. Can't both statements be true, in some cases? In other instances, only the former be true, and the second question be untrue? The, vice~versa?


THEN! There is Non-Objective art, a kissing cousin(?) to abstract art. One could mistake the abstract for the non-objective art, or non-abjective art as abstract art. It would be known only to the painter?

Just more questions. No answers!

fatima10

Hi Fatima10, Long time no see!

C. I. ~
Thank you for your kind words.

Been up to my eyeballs in alligators, lately. No time, energy or grey matter, available to sit down and actually read, comprehend and possibly make a semi-lucid, reply, remark or question.

%$#@!^* alligators! {I post with a smile on my face}.

I am gratefull that I found this intriguing query proposed by Ganja! Thank you Ganja!

fatima10