Abstract Art Weblog

Today, far too many are still suspicious about the motives of abstract artists and question the validity of their work. Many will want to dismiss Abstract Art as some lesser art form, as though it is secondary to Realism. Sadly, I feel they miss the point entirely.

As humans, we constantly feel the urge to express ourselves and simple words are never enough. We search out other more effective means of expression. We employ the use of sound, movement and images. So, for visual expression, does photography or Photo-Realism suffice? No, our intensely deep and emotional spiritual selves can’t survive with simple words, sound or images.

We need something more!

Instead of simple speech we write poetry and lyrics to songs, instead of casual gestures we dance with passion, and for the pleasure of our ears we create music. Beyond basic patterns of color, for visual expression, we paint.

What should we paint? Simple copies of what we see in nature? Is that enough for profound creative expression?

• Poets don’t write mundane words and phrases that everyone speaks. They create anew.
• Dancers don’t simply copy the movement of monkeys. They create new movements.
• Musicians don’t mimic birds. They develop new sounds.

So what should a visual artist paint? Copies of nature?

Real artists create new images. They alter what they see to make their artistic statement. They exemplify the color of light, like the Impressionists did. They alter form like Modigliani and Picasso. They create nostalgia like Bouguereau or Rockwell.

Or perhaps … they paint abstract!

Shouldn’t the visual arts follow suit with the other fine arts in artistic expression? Doesn’t it correlate? Why should painting be restricted to only Realism?

Abstract Art affords the artist the freedom to present his ideas without being constrained to what he visually sees. It allows the artist the means by which he creates and invents wonderful new and exciting images.

Abstract Art, like so many other art movements, was developed with the motovation and purpose of human expression. It endeavors to delve into the far reaches of the human soul … and present it to others.

How boring and insipid the art world would be if we faithfully painted only what we see.

As the very purpose of art is revisited and understood, we have no reason to question the validity and immense value of Abstract Art.

Is each and every one of us an abstract artist?

Absolutely!

“How so?” you might ask. “I don’t even paint!”

To me the most simplistic definition of art is the “creative expression of an idea or emotion”. We are all capable of creative expression. We creatively express ourselves on a daily basis. We do it when we speak, laugh, tell a joke, sing, draw, design, dress, cook, paint, dance, compose… We “paint” pictures with words, we move people to tears with poetry. It is often in a rather abstract manner.

Now, some would argue that such a definition causes confusion when trying to determine who is a “professional” artist and who is not. I agree that it complicates things and may seem to belittle serious artists but there is no denying the very essence of art and what it really is. I don’t think art can or should be defined based on who makes money with it or even by who is good at it. The basic qualifying criteria of any artwork, following my simple definition, is whether or not it is successful at being able to express what it is that it attempted to express.  Now, what happens is that there are so many instances where this is just barely achieved and other times when it is masterfully done. Is it art in all these instances? I say it is. And yet, we do reserve the right to proclaim one artwork (or performance) as great (maybe only in our own eyes), and another as just not very good at all, based on our response.

The bottom-line is that we are all creative. We say and do things with flair and with color so our true meaning comes through clearly. The way we do it is sometimes unorthodox, we exaggerate, we adlib. We don’t simply “testify” to our thoughts as though we’re in a courtroom. We express it succinctly, with finesse and by abstraction.

So ask yourself, “Me, an Abstract artist?”

You bet!

There was significant turbulence during the emergence of Modernism in 1890 and especially Abstract Expressionism in 1940, like the trouble Impressionism faced and most other major revolutionary art movements.

And then the dust settled, followed by a better understanding or at least a certain degree of acceptance to the new ideas.

But, today, after several decades, there are still some that insist that art equates to skill and that modern abstract art is a disgraceful mockery of all that is right and good in the art world.

These ideas are utterly ridiculous! Have they forgotten what art is?

All great art was great not because it was the result of expertise and skill but because it was borne out of invention, creative expression, rebellion against the restraints of the current academia!

I read the following statement expressing concern for this dilemma:

“I would prefer there was no art, and no great paintings anywhere in the world, than that the freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear would be lost.” (ARC Chairman, Fred Ross)

Yes, freedom and liberties are vital for art to thrive! There should be no boundaries set for creative expression. In the same way that Rembrandt manipulated light to evoke a sense of space, the way Sargent employed bold yet simple brushstrokes to provide such depth to his works and Bouguereau created astounding luminous skin tones unseen in the natural world, real artists have always had the vision to create new and profound visual stimuli for our contemplation and pleasure. If we dare to stifle creative expression we slur the names of all artists, even the Old Masters and offend their respective works.

I say that, “To stifle creative expression is to bind and gag our very souls.”

Creative expression - that is the key. And you can’t be creative if you simply copy.

So, an abstract painter abstracts an image from nature or his imagination. Because his image doesn’t already exists in nature, he is branded a fraud? How preposterous!

So, why is modern Abstract Art unaccepted by some? Why should realists ever feel threatened by modern abstract artists? I may not care for either the primitive works of Rousseau or the photo-realism of Ralph Goings, but who am I to question whether or not they created good art? The works of Picasso and Matisse don’t diminish my admiration of Sargent, Bouguereau or any of the Old Masters.

Art lovers didn’t need to be convinced or coerced into accepting modern art as some who believe in some big art conspiracy. Even today we celebrate the vision of Monet and sing songs about van Gogh. Why?

They produced great works!

Art appreciation and acceptance isn’t so troublesome in other fields. Great art is well understood in theater and ballet. The “perfect” dancer isn’t as sought after as the dancer who is a true artist. Art is what delineates the technically-correct dancer from the dancer who has skill and passion!

Why aren’t all the best actors the most handsome or the most beautiful? Because creative expression is necessary to portray character. The greatest actors are artists.

Not all great singers stay in tune. They don’t all have perfectly smooth voices. What they do have is the capacity of creative expression. They are artists.

The greatest vocal performer isn’t the one who “copies” more closely. He’s the one who creates a new sound and gets copied. A good songwriter doesn’t take the melody of a mockingbird, put it to musical notation and says, “Look what I wrote!” Rather, he creates an entirely new melody.

Therefore, the greatest artist is not the one that skillfully copies a landscape. He’s the one that creates a new image, abstracted from either nature or his own imagination. Why should he be less creative than artists in other fields? To be known as a true artist he must possess and employ creative expression.

If the qualification of art is hinged directly on the ability to paint what one sees, then van Gogh failed miserably. So did Rembrandt. In fact there are actually very few artists throughout history who could pass the test!

If an musician whistles to imitate a bird, do we call it art? Of course not. Now what if he constructs a catchy melody? Ah, then he has something. He becomes a creative artist.

What we call Classical music is a complete fabrication of artificial sound - creative expression. It’s abstract! Singing is not a natural sound. It is abstracted from nature. Yet, these composers and musicians are considered artists.

What was the source Mozart’s symphonies? Did he hear it from the birds while strolling through the park? No, he created it. He was an artist.

Art is creation. Art is not “a copy of something.”

True artists throughout history, from the Classical to the realists, all understand what art really is and would disagree with those trying to dismiss and discredit modern abstract art.

“All great art is due to the abstraction process.”

Michelangelo is quoted as saying that, “A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.” It’s not the ability to paint that makes an artist. If art was defined simply by the ability to draw, then my HP printer would be a greater artist than Michelangelo.

Here are some interesting quotes that provide some insight…

“The first virtue of a painting is to be a feast for the eyes.”
Delacroix

“As music is the poetry of sound, so is painting the poetry of sight and the subject-matter has nothing to do with harmony of sound or of color.”
James McNeil Whistler

“Art does not reproduce the visible; rather it makes it visible.”
Norma Jean Harris

“Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere.”
Carl Sagan

“Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.”
George Bernard Shaw

“Painting is silent poetry, and poetry is painting that speaks.”
Simonides

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Albert Einstein

“The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.”
Aristotle

Why would I say that, “Art IS Abstract”?

Well, in my opinion, the only way anything qualifies as art is that it is abstract.

To the degree that an image has been diverted from displaying simple reality, but altered and manipulated to present a new perspective of the subject, abstracted from reality, to that degree, it becomes art.

As long as the artist employs image manipulation for the definite purpose of making his artistic statement and it is perceived and accepted by an audience…to that extent it is art.

On the other hand, even if a so-called artist masters the skill to faithfully reproduce an image and makes no effort to alter or manipulate the image in any way for the purpose of making a statement, he fails to be an artist. Art is not synonymous with the ability to draw or paint.

So, am I saying that a photo-realist is not an artist? Not at all! A photo-realist, as a photographer would, has carefully selected his image, the pose, the angle, lighting, and composition for the work he’ll produce. He won’t waste his time and skill on just any image. The image is artistically orchestrated.

Furthermore, the photo-realist will be very intent on carefully developing his image to imitate a photograph, which is his goal as a photo-realist. He will incorporate the same tonal range characteristics typical of film, as well as barrel distortion and limited depth of field. He purposely manipulates his image to make his artistic statement. The photo-realist does not paint what he sees. His image is abstracted from reality!

Whether a painting is classical, impressionistic, realistic or primitive, it is the abstraction that makes it great.

There can be no art without abstraction. Art is abstract.

It seems as though most of us were raised with preconceived ideas as to what art should be. We “learn” that you’re supposed to recognize something in a painting, so we just stand there looking for what we’re supposed to see in the painting, never taking the chance to simply enjoy it.

What a shame!

It’s probably partly related to the right and left-brain phenomenon. We develop our analytical skills to such a degree (for modern-day survival) that our creative and artistic awareness is squelched. Abstract art just doesn’t “compute”. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not logical to our dominant left side brain. So we just dismiss abstract art as something childish, off the wall. It’s easier than trying to understand it, much less appreciate it.

But it’s really easy to understand and appreciate modern abstract art. Appreciating abstract art doesn’t require a class. You don’t need to know the rules of composition or complex color theory. Some of that might admittedly heighten your experience, but all that is needed to appreciate abstract art is an open mind, no thought or analysis or searching for recognizable forms.

Just look and enjoy.

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.