Hey guys, I have just discovered this site and it is great to see people discussing and sharing ideas and thoughts. While looking through recent and past postings, I saw a few discussions on abstraction and feel I would just like to add my two cents (may seem irrelevant, but I missed out earlier!)..... I'll just add that I am an abstract painter myself, but have draughtsmanship behind me as well.
1. In my own work at least (and I am sure this is the case in alot of other artist's work), abstraction is self-reflexive, and therefore maybe one of the most demanding of disciplines (I am not sure if I am using the right words- writing is not my forte). By self-reflexive, I mean that while I am working, I am actually inventing, drawing things out from myself. However, in order to produce an abstract piece that "works", the artist needs to be competent in representation first and foremost. You need to know the rules to be able to break the rules, as the saying goes. And of course, drawing is the BACKBONE of everything.
This is true in my own practise at least. Thoughts?

polly, i have often thought about the same statement that you make about the artist needing "to be competent in representation first and foremost." i find that this is true in my own work, the better i am at representation, the better i can communicate a larger variety of ideas. however, some artists do not deal with real images, a lot of people deal purely with concepts and don't have a lot of use for representation.

do we really ever break the rules with abstractions, or do we expand our abilities to live by them? i would answer in the latter fashion, myself.

i don't find abstraction to be difficult at all, in fact it comes all too easy. i find that in my efforts to draw or paint representationally, i want to reduce things to simpler terms. it is difficult to break out of abstraction and exaggeration, and settle into representation. it's almost like writing shorthand.

i don't know if i am making sense...it's one of those days where i feel i am walking around in the calmest bubble, and nothing can really get into my head and stay there.

C, I definately relate to your statement.... quite often in my work, the process involves fragmenting and even obliterating things. A lot of the time when I work, I feel like I am on automatic pilot, and I always am driven by instinct! But yes, to do abstraction well, one can't simply chuck stuff haphazardly around.. some judgement comes into play at some point in the process...

Polly,
In my case, abstraction is the most demanding discipline.I was lucky enough to begin to draw very early in my life with a preference to life drawing(what's weired is that at the same time my favorite painter was Miro), I did my classes in fine art school in life and still life drawing from age 11, so in such a situation, I've always knew a painter must go trough the classical academic learning. My only aim was to be able to draw the perfect line, to have what we call in my country a perfect "coup de crayon", the perfect lights and shadows conjuncture within the composition's shapes of a crowd in Paris daytime for instance.But at the same time, I knew it was needeed to have a natural feeling, a kind of intuition to be able to place the right colors at the right places to add more soul to it, so that the result was that things seemed to get out straight of a dream or something, looking at it was moving you into another dimension, still looking like reality, but a blurred oniric one, the impressionists used it a lot, and were way criticized for doing this.People surely have always believed they have the right to say to an artist what is good to do and what is not, but things could not advance if artists weren't taking any responsibilities with passion at some point.
So how do we come to do abstract art one day? Surely not because it is easy.I came across some words by french painter Soulages which is one of the reason why some do abstract art :
"when I used to paint trees during winter, it was most of all because I was blown away by their physical physionomists qualities in their shapes.I was looking at them like abstract sculptures. The richness of a tree branch's shape exists, the richness of the painted shape too. Abstract painting as I understand it is based on this."

Here is a link that might be useful: hendeka

I'm new to Quatre Gats, and I'd like to ask for a definition. Do we all define the abstract form as being the essence of a real thing, or is the abstraction based on something completely imaginary? If so how is it arrived at?

I'm hoping that discussing these issues with you all will overcome my now going on double digit block, missing my classmates :-)

there are two forms of abstraction, in a general sense. the one is abstraction from real images, ie taking a real image and filtering it through an imaginary criteria. this is exemplified by impressionism, cubism, and to get really technical, the very act of painting (translating a 3D image onto a 2D surface).

the other general form of abstraction is "pure abstraction", ie taking imaginary images as a starting point. kandinsky and rothko are pretty good examples of painters who used pure abstraction.

there are all types of gray areas, but they all stem from these two basic principles.

Thank you CMcV, when we are better acquainted can I call you CM? :-) and no, I don't let anyone call me Barb, but I do answer nicely to Kate.
That was my understanding too. I think it's a good idea to establish mutual understanding of the points for discussion. Misunderstanding can be a waste of time and food for ire.

All 'art' is abstract. If nothing else we are asking the viewer to 'get' what we 'get' from a certain assemblage, painting, sculpture, photograph, computer image, blah medium. I paint. I paint on a flat surface. That is abstract. It is mostly all abstract. whatever this thing is we can all agree it is not a computer monitor. (paraphrase from Korzybski)The idea that there is a constant tangible world is an abstraction! Get out of the art libraries and please stop trying to impress me with these flaccid discussions on the nature of artspeak.

kate, you can call me whatever you like.

some grouch, get over yourself, i am not here to impress you. kate asked a question and i answered. i find your statement completely irrelevant, especially since i said it in my post to which your are responding: "to get really technical, the very act of painting (translating a 3D image onto a 2D surface)." it is a matter of semantics as i believe i've said to you before (since i believe you also go by "dave"), but you didn't answer me then so i am assuming that you had nothing else to say about it, besides rehashing it here?.

actually, any idea is an abstraction. therefore, within the great Abstraction, we must have a subset of terms by which to distinguish one thing from another. suggesting that we call everything "abstraction" (that seems to be the only point you come even close to making) is as absurd as calling everything molecules or atoms.

C I understand you are not trying to impress me(anyone)? There are not too many good ideas in here lately and I guess I should not have sounded so personal. I would like to read something interesting, but there is little or nothing. sorry for any perceived offence My statement still stands. Language is what we are all caught up in. There are only words in this forum...or links to images of 21st century stuff...

Grouchy Dave.
You are an angry little snot. Go and have your misdirected tantrum somewhere else. :)

dave...thanks for understanding :-)

you are right, there is very little in here that is interesting...i've never been the one to follow mom's old advice "if you haven't got anything good to say, don't say anything at all"...i realize that has more to do with speaking badly about people, but i suppose it's the role of the artist to reinvent things, right?.

i understand your frustration with art chit chat. although i usually try to stay with the issues that are more relevant to me personally, i tend to get caught up in the banter, because i am a 21 year-old art student in a college / community / state where nobody talks about art.

but as long as your statement still stands...

granted, every form of art is an abstraction. maybe it is unfortunate that everyone whose art doesn't try to replicate images the way we see them is called "abstract", thereby nullifying the broader sense of the term in most artistic conversation...but that is the way that has been chosen to word it. if you are going to object to calling only one facet of art abstract, perhaps you should offer an alternative set of terminology that would better suit the subject? or have you gotten that far yet?

No I suppose I have not gotten that far. I guess ther may be other terms, I do not want to have tantrums here (polly)
There seems to be a large contingency of intellectuals caught in the web of definition. It is difficult to discern
right from wrong, or, stated another way, it is difficult to critique something(art)without starting a personal attack. I need to be less thin-skinned, sure, like everyone else. I really do not have a set of new definitions set up(yet). I hope that 'abstract' artists' can provide definitions, and then adhere to them. It would make the process easier. For example, fantastic landscapes, or angry paint blothes, or happy splatter, photo-unrealism, crazy build up, color disenchantment, luscious brown/red mishap i will try to think of some more. Ultimately I think it is up to the creators of these pieces to let us in on the works origin, not just a philosophical justification but a real example of the works meaning. Peace