Can Non-Representational Art Be Funny?

[The_Hamster_King]

Candid, did you have a particular reason for rejecting my Cy Twombly example?

A few more questions if you please:

Are you heading somewhere with this?

Are you implying that abstract art is somehow flawed because it’s not very good at conveying humor?

Different art forms have different strengths and weaknesses. Dance is not a good medium for depicting landscape. Sculpture is not a good medium for depicting motion. Cinema is not a good medium for depicting internal emotional processes.

Abstract art is mostly about pure form and composition. So any jokes it tells are probably going to be plays on other artistic conventions. They’re not going to leap out at you like this does.

[GorillaMan]

Those Ruscha examples clearly work by being referential, which is an extention of representationality. So I don’t think they count.

[Evil_Captor]

@CandidGamera

Thank you for the specific example. It’s an interesting piece - and in trying to capture motion, rather than emotion, it’s a little different than the sorts of things I had been imagining, but a valid choice. Here’s the question : when did you smile? When you saw the painting, or when you read the title?

Sure, the title helped, but someone with a sharper eye than mine might have gotten the joke without it. In any event, I don’t care about non-representational vs. representational art. I either like it or I don’t. I think Wolfe’s critique of much of representational art in “The Painted Word” is on the money (literally) but it doesn’t seem outlandish to me that non-representational art should be worthwhile. In fact, one of my favorite artists is a fellow who did a lot of SF book covers back in the 60s and 70s that featured infinity grids and melty blobs that in some instances barely resembled people, etc. I never can remember his name, but his work evoked the stark sense of wonder of SF better than any more representational artist ever could

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

This is not a pipe. Nonrepresentational and hilarious!

Daniel

[CandidGamera]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

This is not a pipe. Nonrepresentational and hilarious!

Daniel

Hilarious, yes. But Representational. In fact, it’s a meta-joke on representational … ism?

[CandidGamera]

@Evil Captor

Sure, the title helped, but someone with a sharper eye than mine might have gotten the joke without it. In any event, I don’t care about non-representational vs. representational art. I either like it or I don’t. I think Wolfe’s critique of much of representational art in “The Painted Word” is on the money (literally) but it doesn’t seem outlandish to me that non-representational art should be worthwhile. In fact, one of my favorite artists is a fellow who did a lot of SF book covers back in the 60s and 70s that featured infinity grids and melty blobs that in some instances barely resembled people, etc. I never can remember his name, but his work evoked the stark sense of wonder of SF better than any more representational artist ever could

I never said non-representational art couldn’t appeal… I’m just trying to suss out to what extent it can communicate.

My feeling is that without using something concrete and familiar - there can be no “playing with one’s expectations” - which is fundamental to a lot of humor. Once you had something as simple as a title or a caption, you may be able to crack a joke - but the non-representational piece, by itself, isn’t capable. Because - and this is pure speculation - we don’t have any concrete expectations when it comes to a line. Or a color. Or a shape.

And since the form is static, it can’t easily establish an expectation to later subvert, either. There’s no passage of time in a painting. Now, it might be possible to crack a joke with a collection of NR works, or a gallery - one could set up an expectation with the first works and then play with it at the end - but then the joke would be dependent on the sequence.

That’s what I think. I’m still trying to come up with an idea for an NR work with a joke, though. The best I’ve been able to noodle is dependent on a certain audience makeup - you might be able to make some art historians chuckle by presenting a series of different-colored lines, stretching left to right across the canvas, mutating into different modern art styles in appropriate timeline order, and make them completely normal in the period responding to dadaism. My problem is that its audience specific, and one can argue that it’s representative, even if it is of nothing concrete.

[E-Sabbath]

I think we’re missing a definition of abstract (Non-representational) art, here.

Abstract art

By your definition, Gamera, Picasso’s ‘Nude descending a stairs’ is not abstract.
Of course, then again, this wikipedia article suggests that cubism would not now be considered abstract.
http://www.answers.com/nonrepresentational&r=67
Answers.com suggests that it is not that natural objects are not represented, but that they are not represented realistically.
ArtzBox.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Oh, this is good. A glossary of art styles.

@Artbox

A 20th century style of painting in which nonrepresentational lines, colors, shapes, and forms replace accurate visual depiction of objects, landscape, and figures. The subjects often stylized, blurred, repeated or broken down into basic forms so that it becomes unrecognizable. Intangible subjects such as thoughts, emotions, and time are often expressed in abstract art form.

[CandidGamera]

@E-Sabbath

ArtzBox.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Oh, this is good. A glossary of art styles.

That one does seem to be what my mind’s dancing around. Thanks for the clarity, E-S.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@CandidGamera

Hilarious, yes. But Representational. In fact, it’s a meta-joke on representational … ism?

Representational of what, a pipe? Naw, it ain’t a pipe–it even says so!

(Okay, I’m just being difficult. It’s the only example I could think of that remotely qualifies).

Daniel

[CandidGamera]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Representational of what, a pipe? Naw, it ain’t a pipe–it even says so!

(Okay, I’m just being difficult. It’s the only example I could think of that remotely qualifies).

Daniel

I realize it’s pretty hard to find any jokes at all in the world of “high art” - the environment is a bit stuffy. But that definitely qualifies as a joke.

Of course, there’s “Dogs Playing Poker”…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@CandidGamera

Of course, there’s “Dogs Playing Poker”…

I wonder if you’d be willing to give us some examples of art pieces that you think are just this side of nonrepresentational–that is, pieces that you have to think about before categorizing them, but that ultimately you’d consider nonrepresentational. In reading this thread, it kind of looks as though you’re defending your thesis by contracting your definition of nonrepresentational art to exclude any examples that come along. It’d be good to know where you draw the line.

And from the earlier post with many examples, I thought this one was kinda funny and completely nonrepresentational.

Daniel

[even_sven]

I think we are working off of a strange and impossible definition of “abstract” here. “Abstract” doesn’t mean “free from any reference.” Indeed, it means the opposite- a representation of something this isn’t necessarily one to one. An “abstraction.” Any work that isn’t based on the idea of faithfully rendering a visual scene is abstract. And all art plays off of the world, society, and our emotions. There is no art in a vacuum, that exists without context any context.

[CandidGamera]

@even sven

I think we are working off of a strange and impossible definition of “abstract” here. “Abstract” doesn’t mean “free from any reference.” Indeed, it means the opposite- a representation of something this isn’t necessarily one to one. An “abstraction.” Any work that isn’t based on the idea of faithfully rendering a visual scene is abstract. And all art plays off of the world, society, and our emotions. There is no art in a vacuum, that exists without context any context.

No, we’re working off the one that E-Sab provided, with an emphasis on the unrecognizable word.

[CandidGamera]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I wonder if you’d be willing to give us some examples of art pieces that you think are just this side of nonrepresentational–that is, pieces that you have to think about before categorizing them, but that ultimately you’d consider nonrepresentational. In reading this thread, it kind of looks as though you’re defending your thesis by contracting your definition of nonrepresentational art to exclude any examples that come along. It’d be good to know where you draw the line.

And from the earlier post with many examples, I thought this one was kinda funny and completely nonrepresentational.

The metal-object collage a while back - nonrepresentational. Nude Descending a Staircase - nonrepresentational. The one you cite - nonrepresentational. But what do you find funny about it? Excluding the title…

[E-Sabbath]

In short, Even Sven is right, but too late. Restart the thread, and re-examine the suggestions. I liked ‘Three Sisters’ mentioned earlier.

[CandidGamera]

@E-Sabbath

In short, Even Sven is right, but too late. Restart the thread, and re-examine the suggestions. I liked ‘Three Sisters’ mentioned earlier.

No, not at all. The definition you linked to most closely mirrors the nebulous idea of non-representational in my head, if emphasis is placed on ‘unrecognizable’. It’s what I’ve worked from all along.

[CandidGamera]

@CandidGamera

No, not at all. The definition you linked to most closely mirrors the nebulous idea of non-representational in my head, if emphasis is placed on ‘unrecognizable’. It’s what I’ve worked from all along.

Ugh. Words make good not me.

The nebulous idea, from which I have worked since the beginning, has been very accurately described by the definition you provided, E.

And where’s Three Sisters? Did a find, and can’t turn it up by title in the thread…

[CandidGamera]

@Pochacco

Candid, did you have a particular reason for rejecting my Cy Twombly example?

A few more questions if you please:

Are you heading somewhere with this?

Are you implying that abstract art is somehow flawed because it’s not very good at conveying humor?

Different art forms have different strengths and weaknesses. Dance is not a good medium for depicting landscape. Sculpture is not a good medium for depicting motion. Cinema is not a good medium for depicting internal emotional processes.

Abstract art is mostly about pure form and composition. So any jokes it tells are probably going to be plays on other artistic conventions. They’re not going to leap out at you like this does.

Jeez - I am sorry, Pochacco, I missed this entire post somehow.

I didn’t reject Cy Twombly out of hand, what I said in reply was :

@me

Could you provide some links to specific Twombly works that might amuse? I didn’t see closeups on the site, and Google Image search provided an overabundance.

As for heading somewhere with this - yes, and no. As I mentioned before, I’m just trying to more fully evaluate the medium as a language.

The purpose of art, or so I have been told, is to communicate. It is a language. The broader range of communication possible for a language, the more useful and valuable that language is. If a language is unable to convey humor, that is a deficiency.

Spoken or written word is a very good language. If there’s a concept we have no word for, it can be invented, disseminated, accepted, and used. It can be used to convey emotion, it can be used to tell stories, it can make you laugh, it can describe objects…

Interpretive Dance on the other hand - while I suppose it could be developed into a similar maturity, basically becoming a full-body sign language - isn’t as complete.

Representational Art - not great at telling a story, since it’s static. Fair enough. It’s a flaw. Not great at capturing motion, since it’s static. It doesn’t occur over time. It’s a flaw. But it can be funny.

I guess ultimately the question at the bottom of it all is : “Is non-representational art inherently less worthwhile than representational art?” This would be the first phase, identifying its disadvantages of communication compared to its nearest neighbor. The second phase would be trying to ascertain if it had any advantages.

I encapsulated the discussion around humor because, let’s face it, humor’s something I’m very familiar with.

[E-Sabbath]

Uh… I found it here. I think. And now I can’t.

[The_Hamster_King]

@CandidGamera

Jeez - I am sorry, Pochacco, I missed this entire post somehow.

LOL, you also missed the post where I provided a link to a particular work.

The purpose of art, or so I have been told, is to communicate. It is a language. The broader range of communication possible for a language, the more useful and valuable that language is. If a language is unable to convey humor, that is a deficiency.

Spoken or written word is a very good language. If there’s a concept we have no word for, it can be invented, disseminated, accepted, and used. It can be used to convey emotion, it can be used to tell stories, it can make you laugh, it can describe objects…

Verbal communication is a Swiss Army knife. Decent at communicating almost anything. Excellent at communicating only some things. Is a Swiss Army knife inherently more useful and valuable than a scalpel? Well, it depends on whether you want to open a wine bottle or a throat … .

I guess ultimately the question at the bottom of it all is : “Is non-representational art inherently less worthwhile than representational art?” This would be the first phase, identifying its disadvantages of communication compared to its nearest neighbor. The second phase would be trying to ascertain if it had any advantages.

Its advantage is that it focuses your attention on form and composition instead of on the particular objects represented. It produces a different aesthetic experience, one that isn’t inherently superior or inferior, just different.