I am, for the most part a non-representational painter. I worry alot about the way some critics are talking about the current "irrelevance" of this kind of painting in our "Post-modern" society. Abstractionists seem to be looked at today as self-absorbed and elitist, in an art-world that presently focuses on social and cultural issues. I just wonder what the opinion is out there. Is abstraction still a valid and important form of Art-making? I am only a student, and am still learning about these things. What do you think?
Clay

I wouldn't worry about what critics say, if there was ever an irrelevance in art it is the critic. As for abstraction being irrelevant, well no of course it is not. You don't have to do Picasso, you can be a modern day abstract artist. I mean look at Damien Hirst modern abstraction as far as i can see, video installation, mostly abstract realism from what i've seen. Honestly don't worry about critics, let them worry about you.

I agree with the preceding remarks concerning listening to the critics, that is the first thing to learn, the artist simply creates; it is up to the critic and the historian to put it into some self-conceived context of "importance".
As for art that is social, or that is dealing with today's "topics", that is the type of work that i would be leary of. The things that one feels most passionate about in his or her life are usually rendered obsolete or at the very least unimportant to future ideas.
As long as you are sound in aesthetic considerations, then you will be making art. Everything else is just "icing"; tempting and tasty as that may be. Elements and principles are universal, they span from the most ancient of art forms to the most contemporary and are, after all, the language of the artist.
The point with abstraction is that form and content are solely dependent on the elements and principles and therefore may be the "purest" of artistic undertakings, or at least that was modernist theory as I have come to understand it.

I want to respond to Bill M's remarks of 12/16. The young art student Clay is concerned with contemporary isses and criticism and the relevence of art in postmodernity. Bill M's response is thoroughly modernist in its assumptions. I was dumbfounded at his assertion that art that is "social" and/or dealing with contemporary topics is destined for ultimate irrelevance! As a college professor of art history, it is clear to me that ALL art, throughout all time periods and cultures deals with timely (for their own times) topics of socialrelevence. And I don't even want to get into the idea that topics which the artist feels passionate about are doomed to future obscurity. The greatest most enduring works of world art were created from the wellsprings of intensely personal passion! Now, as to the notion that "basic aesthetic design elements are universal" -- nothing could be further from reality! Basic aesthetic principles in say, Japanese Zen gardens and haikus differ enormously from the basic aesthetic principles at work in a Renaissance canzioniere or fresco, and those again are completely different from an Ancient Egyptian love poem or funerary sculpture, an Australian aboriginal initiation song ceremony or dot painting, or a graffiti mural masterpiece or rap song epic! Aesthetic styles, forms, and standards are ALWAYS relevent to and dependent on their specific cultural contexts. Non-figurative paintings or sculptures are just as dependent on culturally specific aesthetic contexts as any other art form. There have been some excellent articles written about the relationship between the rise of Abstract Expressionism and Cold War politics which would be very useful for Clay to read. A young artist seeking answers to soul-searching questions needs well-researched materials to read which will encourage him in his critical journey towards becoming an excellent artist. Vague "feel-good" patronizing generalizations about "universal" aesthetic standards tend to dull t

Picasso was not really an 'abstract' artist, because most of his works dealt with that most difficult of subjects, the human figure. Mondrian would be a better example of an abstract artist. In the Western art world the debate used to be a religious argument about landscapes vs. figurative art works,(ie Van Gogh vs Gaughin). The debate now it seems to be about abstraction vs. realism. I find it interesting that many artists of Protestant background nowadays specialize in 'realistic' figurative painting, taking their inspiration from Carravagio, for example. But let us cast aside Western religious arguments about art, and look at humankind as a whole in a few sentences; humans have been on earth for apparently about one-hundred thousand years in their current genetic form, and they have always produced figurative art with varying levels of abstraction. Totally abstract art is called design. I can't believe the pompous people who would even claim there is such a thing as modern art. The only thing more 'modern' than Picasso, or a caveman for that matter, would be a Martian. One who seeks to be 'modern' by means of abstraction or minimalism will fail as an artist, and succeed as an art critic (or more precisely, a cultural critic whose job it is to hate and fear others who dare to engage in the visual arts). I don't think that even Mondrian's squares were really intended to be 'modern art' as much as designs, or 'blueprints' for his visions of a more 'spiritual' world. As for the phrase 'abstract realism'; "Who is sitting in that empty chair?"

I feel it necessary to respond to Roxanne and her misunderstanding of the elements in the visual arts. Point, line, value, shape, texture, color and space...what work of art (sculpture, painting, print, drawing, installation, ceramic piece and so on) has not used these elements. From the Tigres/Euphrates river valley to the "contemporary / post-modern" New York art scene. No matter what you are trying to say, if you are not concerned with form, you will not be heard. This is why the visual arts are an arena that can claim El Greco as well as Damien Hirst as artists.

I tend to agree with Roxanne on this matter, esp. on her point that "The greatest most enduring works of world art were created from the wellsprings of intensely personal passion!

Picasso, no matter how "modern" we think of his art, is clearly influenced by African art and Matisse, with the colorful and ornately designed Islamic textiles.

Indeed, the "elements and principles" of art are universal. What is "point, line, value, shape, texture, color and space?" Just names... An artist needs to think beyond the uses of these fundamental terms and create his/her own definitions. They are certainly crucial elements of art; nevertheless, how each artists use these elements is personally diverse and constantly changing. As a result, each culture's aesthetic tastes differ from each other, even from age to age.

So who's to say that "form" is not what I say it is? Then again, what do I care what others say! =) I paint because it's my passion, my life, and my purpose.

I'm happy to have gotten these responses to my query. Roxanne, you mentioned that there were well researched texts that could help me with this matter. Any titles?

Temujin's comments are precisely on the mark! Bill, of
course various design elements are used in diverse cutural
and historical contexts, but design principles are not
universal. And even (as Teujin suggests) those supposedly
"basic forms differ so vastly in their aplications and
interpretations as to render the term "universal" virtually
meaningess. For example I am fascinated by the diversity
in use and interpretation of one of visual design's most
"basic" elements: color. I think that most people know
that white -- the color of purity in the west, is
associated with death in many Asian cultures. But what
about the Inuit peoples who have many words for a vast
array of hues of what we Europeans see and describe as one
color? I think that this suggests that they actually SEE
this color differently than we do. Yoruba (Nigeria)
chromatic system is made of 3 basic color groups: pupa
(warm tones inluding reds, yellows, gold), fun-fun (cool
icy tones including whites, silvers, greys, blues), and
dudu (dark, mid-temperature colors including browns,
blacks, and deep greens). Not only is each color group
strongly associated with the sense of touch (thru
temperature), but also with very specific deities as well!
A Yoruba beaded design that would appear utterly and
"purely" abstract to the untrained eye is laden with
literal meanings and culturally specific significance for a
Yoruba person. Clay, I do not have the reference with me
now (I'm on vacation), but I'll post it here next week for
you!

Two texts that might fit the bill are Eva Cockcroft's Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War and Serge Guilbaut's The New Adventures of the Avant Garde in America. Perhaps what is interesting at the moment in the Good/Bad Art debate are those artists who are deliberately using 'bad' art practices(although terms more applicable than bad might be sketchy, childish, lightly worked, even ugly): people like Martin Maloney and Dexter Dalwood and other artists in the London ICA exhibition Die Young Stay Pretty.Also, more sucessfully,I think, Sarah Lucas. For these people traditional 'modernist' concerns of rightness of form seem less important. Also totally agree about dangers of value judgement, but make them myself every time I look at art!

Clay,
As I recall from studio, visual abstraction, simply, was taking something representational and literally enlarging a section of it—removing it from a frame of reference. It exists in its own world, the only references made are to it’s own parts. I believe the point of it was that it was autonomous from the world (it’s own world…”art for art’s sake.”). It is different from non-objective art, whose frame of reference is what exists outside (usually) the frame. Conceptualism was about fact or pure idea. Again, a distinct “thing” or object in the world, rather than a representation, or copy, of the world. Post-modernism uses the image as the word, constructing visual sentences. It points, as commentary, not to things outside the frame, but to value systems which exist outside the frame.

While it is important to be aware of the contemporary cultural dialogue, (which is not an idealistic dialogue but that which is more aware of the fact of dialogue), (and, if you’re open to ideas, you can’t avoid hearing the dialogue)--what seems to have a longer life span, than the intention behind dialogue, is the visual document. That visual document will be subject to a different dialogue some day, something else is going to carry it through in time, and it won’t be the intention of the era. It will be the interpretation of that era by the subsequent era. What carries art through, its “durability” (which seems to be an aspect of “significance”)--is what we can see, and that’s form, not the intended content, which can be forgotten. Actually, history moves more through misinterpretation. What we know about history are “lessons” for our time. What we discover about other cultures' perceptions wakes us up in ours.

The design or non-design principles reflect the visual philosophy of that time. What is always present about line, color, etc., is, there will always probably be a universal experience in the line moving away from you, rather than towards you. Red will always hit the eye faster than green (aggressive/passive, etc). There are facts to form. In creating new definitions, or new signs/symbols, you need to know what the old definitions are (although, understanding is enough, you don’t need to mimic, unless, of course, you want to) in order to create a relationship of significance.

Art is not completely subjective, there is an objective communication about it, even if it is through consensus. If someone paints a swastika, even if they mean it to represent good will towards men, most of Western civilization is going to have a uniform reaction to the symbol.

Significant thought depends on stepping back , being aware of what you’re doing, how you’re communicating it, learning from what has happened before--what it meant and means; what is happening now, what it means; what needs to happen while considering the value, or significance, of those consequences in relation to the present. That’s the process of redefinition. And then, passionately with conviction, moving forward. Passion is important, art is a sensory experience, but it should be intelligent, informed passion.

Do note that there are significant artists that did not hop onto movements, but followed their own path…but they were not ones who hopped onto the previous movement either, and re-worked it ad nauseum.

So, to answer your question, it depends.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't consider Abstraction to be simply another "movement". I think it is a totally different way of painting than representational painting. Certainly something as basic as representational painting can't be reworked "ad nauseum". It seems to me that one of the biggest things Post-modernist thought has brought into question is the endless pursuit of novelty that Art History leans toward. We consider the most "important" works in history those that were different or made breaks with the established traditions of Art. In the twentieth century, novelty was pursued relentlessly, and by the time Minimalism had had its day, people were saying that painting was dead. I don't beleive abstraction can be worked to death if we change our definition of what makes great art, and stop looking persistently for the "new". The continued search for what hasn't been done is what will kill painting. I think the only limits that are on abstract painting are those that we impose on it. We tire of things too quickly today.

Didn't mean to equate abstraction with a movement...Abstract Expression was the movement; and it seems my response was thinking about the movement.

Abstracting information is part of the cognitive function, and we'll always "abstract" information.

I want to think about this some more.

Clay,

What do you mean by abstraction, then? As far as I'm concerned, Post-Modernism is abstract, an abstraction. Living in society today is abstract.

What do you find valuable about tradition?--(that's a question, not a challenge). What function does tradition fulfill in a society? Can a tradition become irrelevant? (why aren't we sacrificing lambs anymore)

In the 20th Century (Western), we became scientific, were not controlled by the priest-king, eventually drove cars and flew planes; now we watch "screens" (tv, computer); we are not the machine age, but the information age. We moved from subjectivity to objectivity, we have objectified everything. We became "self" aware. Surely, our art had to change too, thus, all the "breaks." We broke with tradition partly because we became aware of what tradition was...we defined it.

I think your complaint has value. There may be some who are rushing towards the new without considering the ideas of the past, without considering what we should keep from the past; they're involved in the surface of the action, rather than the significance (and consequence)of the action.

I don't think of serious contemporary art, serious experimental art as novel, though.

Why is it ok for the scientific community to develop new technology--why are the arts always criticized for advancing their language?

Well, first of all, I don't pretend to know all the answers when it comes to this. I'm only a student, and am only now forming my ideas. By abstraction, I am referring specifically to artworks that contain no recognizable subject matter. This can be achieved by "abstracting" from nature to the point where the subject is unrecognizable, or working purely with the medium which you are using, making no attempt at representing something recognizable. I've read several texts that talk about the current irrelevance of this kind of art making. It has been called a "white male art", and has been criticized for its refusal to deal with social and cultural issues.
I see value in the tradition of Abstract painting because it suits my temperament. I believe that viable abstract paintings can still be made, and I think its somewhat absurd to think that we have exhausted its possibilities after only a century. That is where the pursuit of novelty comes in. I don't think we understand all that abstraction is about yet. There are still texts being written on how to look at and "read" artworks of this kind, and considerable dispute between them. I simply believe there are more great abstract paintings and sculptures to be made. I fear that the current trend in art toward social comment leads us away from something essential and basic in art, that being the importance of drawing, painting, sculpting... working with ones hands and creating the physical art object. Abstraction is a way of working purely with the elements of art. How can we have exhausted its possibilities?

I am an abstract painter,and I am interested in the temporal aspect of the question,is abstract art STILL relevant.I have seen a reproduction of a Paleolithic cave painting of a grid,which indicates that the systems of representation that are currently called Abstract have been around for a long time.Were they called Abstract then?Was there such a concept?Obviously from a visual point of view Abstraction has probably always been with us[e.g.are patterns abstract?]As a practitioner I am coming to regard the category of Abstraction as one which is impossible to attain,one simply aspires.The difficulty is getting the audience to slow down long enough to be able to experience a meaning.Lindy Patterson

More wood for the fire:

Quotations

Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves they have a better idea.
---John Ciardi (1916-86) American Poet, teacher and critic

It’s clever, but is it Art? It’s pretty, but is it Art?
---Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) English writer and Nobel laureate.

One reassuring thing about modern art is that things can’t be as bad as they are painted.
---M. Walthall Jackson

If that’s art, I’m a hottentot.
---Harry S. Truman (1884-1972) 33rd president of the United States of America

There, that's a Jackson Pollock!
---Picasso, chattering an ink bottle against the wall, disgusted with critics over comparisons between him and Pollock

There is no abstract art. You must always start with something.
---Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) Spanish artist and sculpture generally considered the greatest artist of the 20th century.

Abstract art: a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.
---Al Capp (1909-1979) Influential American comic-strip artist,
creator of the comic strip ‘Li’l Abner’, a satire on American society and culture.

Art is idea. It is not enough to draw, paint, and sculpt. An artist should be able to think.
---Gurdon Woods

A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.
---Michelangelo (1475-1564) arguably one of the most inspired creators in the history of art.

An art can only be learned in the workshop of those who are winning their bread by it.
---Samuel Butler (1835-1902) English novelist best know for his satirical work.

There is nothing new in art except talent.
---Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) Russian writer.

I have always believed and still believe that artists who live and work with spiritual values cannot and should not remain indifferent to a conflict in which the highest values of humanity and civilization are at stake.
---Pablo Picasso

Clay, when I was in art school I was "taught" abstract impressionism. It isn't much good to me now. However, I had another teacher who told us to draw. Draw anything and everything, all the time and don't worry about saving it. Draw to develop the ability of the eye to guide the hand to bring the image to the paper without interferance from mental cliches. Message and content will take care of themselves when the unique product of your hand and eye develops its own vocabulary. If this content eventually becomes non-objective, the drawing skill will carry it further.

You used the word "Abstract", which to me means it begins from actual observation of an image. Remember that Picasso was a magnificent draftsman, whose drawings of the human form are breathtakingly beautiful. His later abstract works were based on solid skills in realistic drawing. Developing the ability to do realistic drawing may save you from falling into a self-repetative style that is too limited.

Edna,

See "Please Answer These Questions" on Quatre Chat, specifically #2 (re: realism). "Realism" still is subject to mediation/conceptualization and abstraction. Even photography interprets. Abstraction "sees" generalities, relationships, categories, wholes to parts to wholes, organization, order, etc.

Realism corresponded with the inchoate development of biology, and its principles are found around there. Realism is also a second order reality, illusionistic, it attempts to mimic first order reality.

What is good about drawing though, realistically or in abstraction, is viewing the world. Keeping your eyes in touch. One wonders what will happen if virtual reality glasses catch on, and everyone is looking inward towards "realistic" figures and environments...which of course won't be real.

This is a very interesting discussion.
One of my tutors once said that "abstract Art, is Art that has no visual references to reality"
Other abstract Art is real though, and I often refer to other artists work.
Does this mean that my 'abstractions' are not actually abstract? Or was the origonal statement doomed to begin with?

I'm with Al Capp. The man was an ARTIST. His message is my message.

Clay ( not the poster ) Gratz

Hey, don't sweat it!
Abstraction was never relevant. It never will be.
They just did it because they felt like doing it; if you feel like doing it, go ahead.
Nobody will be affected in any way.
v

abstraction art is what the art is feeling and the tones represent the mood of which the painting is set.

Relevant yes. But crude and pretentious at best. Generally, honestly respected when done only by Chimps and Gorillas.

I haven't read all the comments, but what is important to note, is that religion has played a large part in art through time, now without religion people in many societies (especially artists) look for something else, the abstraction which relates to emotions and feelings will be relevant in many future generations shortly, I think the negative views towards abstarct art will soon disperse, this will come into realisation, people can no longer praise art for belief, or adore it for status as these things to most artists are not important, who cares if it's relevant right now? Who cares whom it is relevant to?

Clay
There is a lot of extreme emotions involved in viewing and discussing the issue of Abstract Art and it's worth, as anyone can gather from all the extreme and sometimes confused responses we hear. That alone pretty much sums up it's importance as an art statement. I personally think that to remain as objective about the issue as possible you need to concentrate on the fact that abstract art does not depend so much on thought as most other art forms do. It's more like the rhythms of the emotional world enlarged and purified to a degree where the onlooker becomes transported back into a chaos, bliss, ecstacy or peace the artist was probably experiencing and reinterpreting via routes lent to him by the world of art. Abstract art has the amazing ability to traverse the world of religion (look at Rothko's church installation), philosophy and mysticism in a visual documentation. As a matter of fact some of the worst examples of art and 'taste' has been when artists tried to do it through concrete symbolism and it usually fails, the reality of it usually distracts your attention from what is supposed to be the theme of the work.
Another aspect we should keep in mind when considering what was written previously about all the cultures and their different modes of expression, is that abstract art has managed to grab onto the underlying 'force' that pushes humanity to scribble and build things in images and to actually artisticly concentrate it as an element in it's own right. The universal character of this art form is quite obvious if you don't try and philosophise it into a neat container, something that is an intrinsic part of the realist's aesthetic. The realist usually tries inducing an artificial abstraction through recognizable reality: the way in which we mostly stumble upon it, but this is more often than not crude and faint. The abstract artist strips away the outer skin and is left with an intense glimpse of that 'underworld' we 'detect' in many great works of art. My opinion is that if cubism was the exploration of the scaffolding or skeleton of reality, abstract art was the exploration of it's soul. As to your question if all this waffling on abstraction I have just thrown at you has any more relevance, I would have to say no.
I believe the abstract artists met with a great challenge when they set out to accomplish their task, and I firmly believe that some of those 'frozen and suspended emotions' they captured was proof of the exreme capabilities of painting as a medium of expression. It's ability also to represent and express the existential/freudian curiosities, thoughts and feelings of the leading exponents of early 20th century art, as well as mankind in general with the reality and it's 'subterranean' counterpart that surrounds us, proved it's relevance . There's is no need to repeat the challenge, it has been succesfully proven. If you enjoy the challenge of further exploring it's possiblities, then nothing stands in your way except perhaps the fear of missing out on fresher developments in the world of representation (a bad case of unrelativity). Reinterpretaion and reshaping aesthetics is actually what most artists should be focusing on. Learn to find an affinity with the world of abstraction and you will not be dissappointed. Anyone who would like to enjoy a purer world stripped bare of it's safety net will enjoy this and it also becomes emotionally educational, it teaches frank, honest and direct evaluation of emotions. This world you discover in yourself can be reinterpreted back into a fresher look at the world around you with a mature sense of what underlies it.

ofcourse it is otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question with such passion. I am therefore I create thats why I exist immortal as I
Http://www.AntoniomyPaintings.com

Here is a link that might be useful: my paintings

in reply to the message
Posted by: John Rivera-Resto
More wood for the fire:
Quotations

first of all - picasso was a genius - but...

piccaso would always be inclined to contradict his art to the point of meaningless drivle (creat that myth pablo)" - he understood his muse/mojo least of everyone - you come to art with yourself and only have yourself to blame -

if you patronise your audience they will know -
if you falsify your intentions - they will know -
if you fake your influences - they will know -
the brush strokes (or lack of them ms Emin) will show the lie.

be honest with your self and look for perfection within.

art is the means to an end - a study in semiology - never forget your audience - even if it is YOU!

and in the words of my good friend mr A.kiedis

"if you have to ask - youl never know"

as for the other quotations - "load of tories"

thanks

j

xx

For me art is that which I am driven to create. I may dabble in various styles but there is this one philosophy which creeps up and haunts me. It moves and influences me like no other art form. I may even give it up and move on to something else but one day something sparks it up again. I must accept it and take ahold of it and create. If not one soul ever experiences my art I am still fulfilled because I have listened to my inner self and have created. Here is a quote that sums it up...

"The taste of the public does never affect the real artist, because he is not able to create something else but to what he is pressed by his nature and development. Unfortunately some people believe now and then that he can act according to the public and the momentary success does even pay, but the betrayal takes its toll later by all means." Arnold Schoenberg

Here is a link that might be useful: David Isaac Barclay

See, at one time people actually exchanged ideas here

yes it is

Here is a link that might be useful: paintings

If it wasn't you would even be asking this question.

Here is a link that might be useful: Lambert Art Gallery

"I am, for the most part a non-representational painter. I worry alot about the way some critics are talking about the current "irrelevance" of this kind of painting...".

Hmm, no one has really addressed this thought. Does art *need* to be relevant? Isn't that an artist's choice? And then it's up to you and Ito decide if the work has anything to say to us?

I suppose this all goes back to the mother of all art questions; "what is the purpose of art".

Eeek, I think we've done this before.

In one word...YESITIS! No further discussion...LOL. I came into the thread a little too late to add my two-bits.

JAZ