Why do you think Abstract Art is not popular here?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08 August 2005   #31
Maybe for the same reason that asian girls/orc & medieval art IS popular here.
__________________
---------------------------------
 
Old 08 August 2005   #32
Originally Posted by PSR: To understand abstract art, you have to realise that Art has a cognitive function. Quite separate to its illustrative, commercial and political applications.

Something like the relationship that exists, between pure scientific research, (that most of us don't understand), and the technological spinoffs from that research, that we all enjoy


How is cognitive function unique to abstraction? This function applies to all forms and styles of art and cannot be separated from the "illustrative" one. You are comparing two unrelated things here. In your comparison, you are suggesting that abstraction has no illustrative value, but purely cognitive. If that's what you meant, then it's incorrect.

Cognition is the experience of knowing. Every mental process can be cognitive. The non-visual differences between figurative art and abstract art lie in the way the spectator assimilate or interpret the reality with his/her own mind and based on past experience.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #33
some times figurative can't explain all subjects or themes, so artists use abstraction to communicate. Some artists can communicate visually while others can't. Abstract art is still new because their aren't any artists who could take it and expose it in a way to mass media. Abstract art doesn't have to be a singular 2d still but when it is it turns into an abstract 'fine-art' piece, which is cool.
Minds advanced, info is easily accessible, everyone in the world knows abstract art but would mind at times having to be surprisingly stare at a piece for longer than 15 minutes without being hi out of their minds. abstract art isn't the type of art that gets or dare i say should be taken advantage of everyday by the populous, because it tires and drains people. It's like going camping and staring at the campfire, it makes you think and wonder and visualise and your in bliss, than you wake up the next day with sore eyes and brain forgetting most of the vortex of deep meditative thoughts and sights displayed by the source of abstraction.

~le durt
----
Thank you, thank you....thank you...please, no need for applause...just throw money
 
Old 08 August 2005   #34
Abstract (and modern fine art) is the masturbation of artists. Your only pleasing yourself and a few wierdos that are into watching you do it -> (the 'educated' art world)

abstract is just the simplification of everything you learn in your first year of art school. Composition, color theory, texture, mood... blah blah blah.

so the thing you do is, learn all the rules, but dont apply them to anything! Then you just get exaples of well thought out color and composition. In case you didnt notice im not a fan of modern art. Art is about communication, and abstract is a very weak language.
__________________
WEBSITE
AdamRichardsIllustration.com
 
Old 08 August 2005   #35
[QUOTE=ashakarc]How is cognitive function unique to abstraction? This function applies to all forms and styles of art and cannot be separated from the "illustrative" one. You are comparing two unrelated things here. In your comparison, you are suggesting that abstraction has no illustrative value, but purely cognitive. If that's what you meant, then it's incorrect.QUOTE]

It's not unique to abstraction.

The point is, that all art, and science for that matter is abstract. The cognitive function, (and it is only one function of the visual arts), lies in our need to understand and describe our world, and experience.

It is the realisation that the art objects that we create, are in fact just that. Objects in their own right, just like other objects, man made or natural.

Paintings or sculptures, no matter how realistic they appear, are only what they are. In the case of painting, an arrangement of colours and marks next to each other on canvas. This is what led to the development of what is now termed abstract art.

the realistic representation of things, in art, ( i.e., describing the surface appearance of things ), has gone as far as it can go. We know now, that how we feel about things, emotionally, spiritually and psychologically, is as important to the way we understand our world, as how things appear to us.

Abstraction is an addition, or rather an expansion of the vast lexicon available for artistic expression. Not by any means a replacement or threat to what's gone before.

Last edited by PSR : 08 August 2005 at 12:36 AM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #36
Originally Posted by CodeNothing: Abstract (and modern fine art) is the masturbation of artists. Your only pleasing yourself and a few wierdos that are into watching you do it -> (the 'educated' art world)


Well this sort of attitude prevents any sort of serious arguements doesn't it. I'll just give it a go.

It's been proven that certain colours give the viewer certain emotional responses, the careful variations and choice of placement would be an art.

I'd argue the simpel depiction of a dude holding a gun would be masturbation since it strikes no more than a level of testosteron.
__________________
modelling practice #1
 
Old 08 August 2005   #37
Originally Posted by PSR: [QUOTE=ashakarc]
Abstraction is an addition, or rather an expansion of the vast lexicon available for artistic expression. Not by any means a replacement or threat to what's gone before.


i'm Gonna have to Go Ahead and Add ThaT to My LibrarY of quotes BuddyBoyyyyy
 
Old 08 August 2005   #38
FYI google abstract art + definition

copied and pasted from wikipedia

Abstract art
is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses shapes and colours in a non-representational or non-objective way. In the very early 20th century, the term was more often used to describe art, such as Cubist and Futurist art, that does represent the natural world, but does so by capturing something of its immutable intrinsic qualities rather than by imitating its external appearance. See Abstraction.

Abstract pattern making has an ancient history dating back to the earliest decorations on textiles, pottery and so on. However, the idea that the arrangement of shapes and colours is not simply to be understood as design, but as fine art dates from the nineteenth century when photography began to make the illustrative function of visual art obsolete. Even before the widespread use of photography some artists, such as James McNeill Whistler were placing greater emphasis on visual sensation than the depiction of objects. Whistler argued that art should concern itself with the harmonious arrangement of colours, just as music deals with the harmonious arrangement of sounds. Whistler's painting Nocturne in Black and Gold (1875) is often seen as a major move towards abstraction. Later artists such as Wassily Kandinsky argued that modern science dealt with dynamic forces, revealing that matter was ultimately spiritual in character. Art should display the spiritual forces behind the visual world. Wassily Kandinsky and Kasimir Malevich are generally seen as the first fully abstract artists. Kandinky's art is sometimes called 'soft edged', while Malevich's is 'hard edged'. This distinction is repeated in later abstract artists. The blurred, dynamic lines and colors used by Kandinsky developed into Abstract Expressionism, while the use of overlapping or interacting geometrical forms is found in the work of Piet Mondrian and many later artists such as the op artists of the 1960s.

To quote abstract artist, Robert Stark, "Every day is a test of each painting's ability to stand on its own. Each painting is subject to being changed, to being reworked or scraped and repainted as long as it remains in the studio. Where I often used to spend weeks on a painting, attempting to 'make a picture,' now my concerns are more about the energy of light, the mass of space, the emotions of shadows. I want the painting to meet the viewer somewhere in the middle, where the viewer brings his own experiences to bear in understanding and feeling what he is seeing.

I want my paintings to achieve the complexity and density of poetry or of a symphony, to build suggestive layers, implicit felt meaning, not merely to be entertaining bit of color to seduce the eye. I want my paintings to be accessible to children as well as adults, and to be so simply and directly painted that it shows the act of painting for the joy and excitement of it.

Proof is in the viewing."
__________________



 
Old 08 August 2005   #39
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein: Well this sort of attitude prevents any sort of serious arguements doesn't it. I'll just give it a go.

It's been proven that certain colours give the viewer certain emotional responses, the careful variations and choice of placement would be an art.

I'd argue the simpel depiction of a dude holding a gun would be masturbation since it strikes no more than a level of testosteron.


I TOTALY agree that certain colors, shapes, textures can make the viewer experience certain sensations just by simply viewing them. BUT!.....

if i go to a gallery, on one wall, i nail up a flat 5ft by 5ft canvas painted cadmium red...

and on the other wall, a 5ft by 5ft canvas painted red with a sinister figure staring into the eyes of the viewer....

the viewers that come to the gallery will spend 99% of there time looking at the canvas with the figure. The other canvas (just red) is BORING! yes it still gives the viewer that sense of anger, and foreboding... but the canvas with the figure gives that same emotion X10 because there is something to read in it they can identify with.

both paintings used the same process of emotion (color) but the figure piece gave more.

so yes, i UNDRESTAND abstract art, i know how to read it,(i went to art center) i just dont like it. I dont see the point in puting that much effort into art work that 90% of the population doesnt give a crap about. Unless you are only doing i for yourself (more power to you) just dont be offended when the 'un-educated' public hates your stuff. we grew up with leonardo and norman rockwell, 3 blue squares and one red cercle cant compete.
__________________
WEBSITE
AdamRichardsIllustration.com
 
Old 08 August 2005   #40
Originally Posted by CodeNothing: Abstract (and modern fine art) is the masturbation of artists. Your only pleasing yourself and a few wierdos that are into watching you do it -> (the 'educated' art world)


Well, in my opinion art SHOULD BE about pleasing yourself. Do you make your art to please others? If so that is your choice. But last time I checked masturbation was fun (so I hear, hehe) and if creating the kind of art you personally enjoy is the same thing, then I say: wack away!

Abstract art is one of the bestselling genres. It is featured in thousands of galleries around the world and is a favorite choice by people to decorate large portions of the walls at homes, hotels, etc.

Apparently it's more than just a few "weirdos" that enjoy it.

Just like some people enjoy instrumental music with no singing, (like me) others love rap music. Every artform brings it's own level of stimuli. Some allow for more interpretation than others. Whether you are educated about art or not is not a factor. You can appreciate abstract art either for the deeper meaning or just for looking pretty. It's up to the viewer!
 
Old 08 August 2005   #41
Originally Posted by CodeNothing: if i go to a gallery, on one wall, i nail up a flat 5ft by 5ft canvas painted cadmium red...

and on the other wall, a 5ft by 5ft canvas painted red with a sinister figure staring into the eyes of the viewer....



A sinister figure. Wow that is original! Very cliched if you ask me...

The figure tells the viewer what to see and feel. It doesn't let them imagine, it smacks them and says, "feel this!".

The red canvas (or another abstract work) sits on the wall and exists. Instead of telling the viewer what to think, it merely asks them a question. It allows each and every viewer to use their own imagination and intuition to get their own unique feeling about the piece. Some may get a negative reaction about the piece, some a positive. But at least it is multi-dimensional and can be interpreted different ways.

The sinister figure reminds me of popular culture horror films. They just uses cliches built up over the past 100 years of cinema to make the viewer feel a certain way. The sinister figure or a bad horror film doesn't try and expand their conciousness or let them see the world in a slightly different and new way. It works on the surface level of emotion and feeling. There are so many different ways to touch a viewer, why limit yourself to something so obvious?

When I go to an art gallery I want to be moved, challenged, inspired, and changed. I want to see new, exciting and different works of art that challenge or enlighten me about my existence as a human being. I want my conciousness to be expanded. I don't want to be smacked and told something I already know.

To me, that is what art is about.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #42
lmao guys,

The best abstract painting vs the best figurative.?? Even Da'vinci would be elated to see the artworld flurish in diverse genres.

Figurative is easy to expand and learn from. I would like to call it, external art.
But abstract takes a lot of thinking, sometimes no thinkling at all and freestyle gestures fueled from a natural source from within. I would like to call it, internal art.

Even when 99 percent of the accepted,figurative art we see today people easily accept because of its simplistic nature of communication, which helps refine the art craft.

Abstract takes an artist of fine understanding to perform 'its' task. To look at art and master one thing based on its external features and not-more-so on the distinction of honing beauty for display is bad judment by an artist. Abstract has this workout for artistic devolopment. Just as figurative is for honing external skills. We as artists should praise those that seek to master and create abstract art. Although not wholly accepted by the masses because of its foreign language, it should be wholly supported.

No different than endangered animals, we fear endangering the heirarchy of Art itself by not maintaining a balance of perfection for our Craft, as artists and as a people, because we chose by some impluse not to chart the deep dark waters other branches of ART has to offer us.

Last edited by RoundRobbin : 08 August 2005 at 10:08 AM.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #43
interesting topic

hi there,
just started reading the topic, and some very good points too and for abstract. i for one, dont hold any credit towards abstract art. but i will say this, art reflects life, it always has. through our experiences in this life, wedepict visually our state within ourselves. and if you look at the world today, never before has it been in more chaos than in todays day and age, and it is no wonder thatmany artists chose to depict ugliness...even thoug, yes by cleverly deciding what colours and where to put them, may make it art. it is however, a representation of us as people. when i paint realisticaly, i also, cleverly arrange colours, and shapes, but i also have to consider nature, anatomy, light, form...these (in my opinion) are far more beautiful to depict, and are far more skilled to do and appreciate, than a slap dash, point point of the paintbrush. i beleive the true masters of our time, can be found here, nbot in galleries, my family has been in art for many generations, and i dont really enjoy galleries anymore, cause of the fact above, we've become so shallow, and simple, that that is what art is depicting today.
 
Old 08 August 2005   #44
Abstract art

I think really that the digital media lends itself more to doing more fantasy and rendering, a more 'landscape of the mind' (for lack of a better description i have) a visual story telling that is quite different, more dimensional than the pure abstract. Just my 2 cents.
Adri
 
Old 08 August 2005   #45
I don't think Abstract Art is unpopular at all. Tell people to tell the names of traditional artists and I bet Picasso would be in 80 % of the answers.

In my opinion digitally based art is not art in the most cases at the moment, because of it's figurative speech. The main goal appears to me to achieve realism with digital media. But the whole digital-art thing is going in a more artistic direction. If you compare the digital art made 5 years ago you notice a big difference. Today there are much more abstract elements, still mixed with figurative art, in the most well-known works. I think this is a process from craft to art which digital art is doing at the moment. Give 5 more years and we will see extraordinary abstract art based on 3D-techniques, maybe there will develop another form of abstract art based on 3-dimensional primitives (the teapot for example ).

So we can conclude that there is not much interest in art at all, not specifically in Abstract Art.

BTW: Look at this painting of Max Ernst and tell me if you would look more at the gloomy figurative guy on the other wall, and which picture would you enjoy longer looking at ?
http://art.gothic.ru/paint/ernst/show_e.htm?silence.jpg
__________________
my new portfolio

"This is the best movie I've ever seen. It has a vampire and an explosion!" -- Fry
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.