Abstract Art Weblog

I was very pleased this holiday season to have a somewhat heightened interest in my abstract paintings, even though most people are busy looking elsewhere for gifts. Abstract art is far from being a typical Christmas gift. The interest was very welcomed, however, when someone actually wants to buy a painting as a Christmas gift, I get a bit nervous.

That’s because appreciating abstract art is a very personal thing. You just can’t convince anyone to like a work of art, especially if it’s abstract art. After all, it really is in the eye of the beholder.

The bottom-line is that buying abstract art for a Christmas gift is a hit-or-miss proposition - very tricky. Even if a friend were to comment favorably about a certain painting, that doesn’t necessarily mean they want to have it.

So, I’m a bit uneasy when selling my work to a third party, especially to someone who hasn’t even seen the artwork. My fear is that it either gets hung where they don’t have to look at it, just pitch it in the closet, or worse yet, dump it into the garbage!

On the other hand, if you have good perception, and can read what a person is about, and can successfully match their character and personality to the “perfect” abstract painting, it could work out very well, and it would be a wonderful gift indeed!

A good abstract painting can really be the proverbial “gift that keeps on giving”. In addition to providing wonderful visual and aesthetic pleasures, paintings don’t need batteries, break down, become obsolete…They will outlive their proud owners and their children!

A few years ago, I read an interesting thread on an art forum. The title was, “That’s Art?” So many posters had so many varying ideas about what art is and what it isn’t. Some argued against modern art and some praised it. Some said that art had to be beautiful while others said it must be skillful. Some said it had to make a statement. One felt that art was “reborn” when it broke away from realism. There was also a discussion concerning a certain canvas, which was painted black and titled, “Night”. Is it art? Many said, “yes”, some said, “no”.

I like to evaluate and measure art based on the premise that art is “creative expression”. Real art is driven by the need to express something that simple, fact-filled words or detailed diagrams cannot suffice. What’s needed is creativity, poetry, finesse, flair, whatever you might call it…something that raises the level of communication to where one is really moved or touched by the artist’s work. And, if no one is moved by the work, then it fails to fulfill its purpose to that degree, and fails to be genuine, meaningful art.  

Still, I do believe that the qualification of art is all-inclusive. It simply has to be a crafted work presented to an audience. Through some medium, paint, for example, the artist communicates a thought or message. Whether his art deeply moves people or is just balked at, it is still art, technically. It may not be very effective - lack of skill or vision may have stifled his efforts - but it is still art.

Now, of course, there is a vast difference between what merely “passes” as art and really great art. Consider this: If an artist, who has great skill, painted something very realistic, but fails to move anyone, while another artist, with less skill, composes a very profound image with only a few strokes of paint and it really moves the viewer, who has created the greater art?

Art cannot equate to skill. We already have sophisticated devices, like cameras and computers, that can “skillfully” “paint” images. Skill is not what defines art!  An emotion, thought, statement, feeling and then having the skill to effectively communicate it to another…that is art. By definition, art must be something that can’t be generated by a computer. 

Even though art is not merely skill, it does require some skill in order for good art to be effective and meaningful. It is not just communication of an emotion, but skillful communication of an emotion, skilled in a way that the artist carefully chooses colors, composes forms and constructs the elements of a work in a way that best communicates his message.

Communication involves two elements, the presenter and the receiver. Effectiveness of the art depends on both. The better the artist and the resulting work and the better the reception by the viewer, the better the art. If the receiver doesn’t “get it”, then the art is not effective and its value is diminished…the actual value of art changes depending on who is looking at it and the experience they have!

So, is it art or is it not? As the viewer, the answer is completely up to you.

Why does abstract art even exist? Who started it? Does it serve a purpose?

I see abstract art as having greater freedom and more passion. Today, the term “abstract art” is used quite differently than it was originally. Quite literally, abstract art refers to “abstraction” from reality, or “to carefully depict a certain aspect of the subject not readily apparent otherwise.” Today we refer to any non-figurative or non-representational art as being abstract and some fail to realize that even impressionism is really abstract by the purest definition.

Now, to dispel another poor assumption, good abstract art should never be confused with substandard or sloppy painting, as many people have so commonly believed. Of course, artists can and do indeed paint bad abstracts, just as they can and do create bad photo-realism works. But, really good abstracts can be considerably difficult to create.

Abstract art does cover a rather wide gamut of styles and objectives. It can be either totally non-representational, where one has to completely invent the image, or abstracted from nature in such a way where one has to be keenly creative.  It can be very challenging.

Abstract art really should be embraced by everyone, because just like in music, such profound and exciting new images can be created beyond what we physically experience in nature. How boring the art world would be if we faithfully painted only what we see.