Technical skill != artistic talent.
You can be the greatest draftsman in the world, yet still not be an artist.
That, um, you’re missing the point? Or at least missing A point? That there are other criteria under consideration besides manual dexterity and graphic skill?
Quite a long post for such a cheap insult. If shown a picture and asked what I see, I will answer honestly - if it looks like it could be a few different things, I might list all of them, but if I think one response to be the most probable answer, I will give that answer. It doesn’t mean I don’t see the other possibilities… it means that I see one most clearly.
What’s annoying about this is your ignorance. You simply have no clue what you’re talking about.
Well, if I tell you that the reason I don’t like abstract art is because it seems to take no skill, and you disregard my reason, then it’s you who misses the point.
“I don’t like abstract art.”
“Why?”
“It takes no skill.”
“But that’s not the point!”
“Obviously, it is.”
I have eyes. I’ve drawn doodles. I’m qualified to have an opinion.
And we’re trying to tell you, those exist in most abstract art, especially Kandinsky.
For example here is one of his theoretical essays on the subject. It explore the function of points and lines in non-representational work. There are guidelines. There are suggestions. There are goals. There are targets. Or try one of his essays on color theory. His color choices and compositions are deliberate, and you can read about all the rules here.
That said, his work contains many traditional compositional elements. The “golden mean” or “rule of thirds” can be found in much of his work. His use of color, while vibrant and unusual, is based on elementary color theory–heavy use of complementaries and balancing “color weight.” Most of his compositions lead the eye with lines coming in from the corners, or forming pleasing clumps of shape and color in triangles and other basic shapes – a hallmark of traditional composition. This are all principles you can find in Michaelangelo. These are compositional principles I use when I photograph.
That’s why I say Kandinsky isn’t particularly difficult, because he does tie in a lot of traditional compositional elements of representational art. The more contemporary stuff can be much more difficult to grasp. I certainly don’t understand a lot of it because, like you, I do enjoy structure in my paintings. Kandinsky, Picasso, Klee, Pollock, et al, do not eschew traditional graphic design principles. A lot of the really modern stuff does actively challenge these compositional ideas and feel more “off-balance” and disconcerting than these images.
In any case, CanGam, and seriously, you’re not going to find the “key” to getting more out of abstract art from this thread. If you’re really interested in the subject (which I assume you are from the amount of effort you’re putting into this thread), there are far better sources of information.
As you can see from this thread, it IS possible to get value out of abstract art. It might be an interesting experiment for you to absorb some education on the subject, and see if your views undergo any changes.
It’s not exactly analogous to a language, but criticism of a French poem from a French speaker would come from a different perspective than such criticism from a non-French speaker.
“I don’t like democracy.”
“Why?”
“Because I don’t like four syllable words.”
“But that’s not the point!”
“Obviously, it is.”
Having eyes is not the same as learning how to see.
That’s what people are taught in art school. Teachers don’t show you how to hold a brush or mix paint - they teach you how to see.
You see things in a utilitarian sense - a stoplight, for example, controls the flow of traffic. To an artist (whether representational or not) a stoplight is a collection of color, form, and value existing in space in relation to other objects.
Having skill and having talent are two additional issues not related to this argument. And, truly, speaking of “modern” and “abstract” art in the same breath is misleading - Andres Serrano is plenty modern and controversial, and not at all abstract.
But you’re not qualified to have an informed opinion.
You say “it seems to take no skill.” I can accept this. To you, that’s how it seems.
I, and many others, look at the same piece and think it takes incredible skill. I have no doubt I’d be able to distinguish a Kandinsky I’ve never seen before from a work you’ve produced. Absolutely no question about it.
Like I said a million time, I’ve tried on many occassions to produce something with that kind of vitality, that kind of abstraction. I’ve tried to imitate Wassily’s work. I just can’t. I don’t even know where to start. I have no clue how he did it.
I can draw a portrait of myself with a decent amount of skill. I can do the realistic thing. That’s relatively easy compared with abstraction.
And it’s wonderful that you see those things there. Really.
I. Don’t.
I see circles, triangles, straight lines, and curved lines. And while it may all be color-balanced according to some formula of aesthetic sense, and that’s great, it still looks like something I might doodle after getting a new desk-set with straightedges and templates.
I’m not trying to get more out of it. I’m trying to explain my position.
And that’s fine. I have no problem with this stance. I just don’t like the implication you seem to make that it’s all bullshit. If this is what you had said all along, I wouldn’t have argued with you.
Well, almost right. Change the first sentence to “I don’t like the word ‘democracy’” and you’ve got a rephrased version of my analogy.
I’m not really going to argue you on this one. My biggest abstract art “WTF?” moment was when I was looking at Suprematist artworks at MoMa in New York, and examining Kasimir Malevich’s Red Square: Painterly Realism of a Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions.Now, in context, having just walked through galleries dedicated to previous movements that inspired the Suprematist Movement, and understanding that it’s not intended to be a matter of “Look, see…here’s her legs and this is her left shoulder…” but rather reduction of form to it’s most extreme, I could appreciate the direction the artist is coming from, but come on, it’s a fucking square. I can appreciate it, but I don’t particularly like it, and I don’t think it represents one of the greatest moments in art history. HOWEVER. Judging all abstract art to be crap as represented by one movement is neither fair, nor accurate.
(my boyfriend loves this kind of stuff. Which is why I was in MoMA trying to understand it in the first place. Fortunately, he enjoys Kandinsky more than the Suprematists.)
If you wanted to expand your ability to see, you might want to read (and do the exercises in) Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. Learning to use your right brain can have a lot of additional benefits, and would help you understand art - both representational and non-representational.
The sad thing is, the way you describe representational art really shows that you don’t understand it, either; achieving “realism” is rarely the goal.
You have the freedom to regard my opinion as uninformed; I have the freedom to regard yours as the product of a century-old practical joke. Just sayin’.
So CanGam, have your views on the subject undergone any change at all in the course of this thread? Do you still think that anyone who sees anything of value in any abstract art has just been sold a bill of goods by a convincing artspeaker? Or do you understand that some people other than you could actually very easily distinguish a Kandinsky from an Orangutan. Are you saying that it simply holds no interest for you, or that you’re the only one who sees such art with absolute clarity?
Read it again without the change to understand the analogy I was actually making.