"let's splatter paint on a canvas" it's just so boring.
oh cypress, you crack me up!Originally Posted by CypressDahlia
I mean shit, you're right. I mean it's not like people put any thought in abstract art. like, lol, what is composition and color usage? its so easy! I can do it in ms paint! abstract artists have been suckering people for YEARS! right guys?!?!
o (◡‿◡✿)
(ღ˘⌣˘ღ) ♫･*:.｡. .｡.:*･
Yeah that's totally what I said.
take it from a person who has attended multiple art history and art appreciation seminars at modern art exhibits. If you ask 10 different people about the "composition" and "color usage" of an abstract painting, you'll get 10 different answers. Often times they'll look at each other and go "I didn't see that" or "where do you see that?" Why? Because there is no standard. There's nothing to compare it to. The worth of abstract art on a compositional level is entirely up to the viewer. So to say abstract art uses composition and pretty colors is kind of an empty statement. Maybe I think Pollack is a genius for splattering purple paint in certain areas. But how do I know that's "good" composition? Is there a standard for paint splattering? If it's not supposed to LOOK like anything, there is no way to judge how accurate it is.
At best we can give them credit for basic color theory. Ohhhh orange works well with blue GJ GJ.
Last edited by CypressDahlia; 01-18-2012 at 12:02 AM.
If its upon the viewer does it mean that the author had no idea what he was doing?
Can this please be quoted for truth until the end of time?
I'm not a furry, but I know for a solid FACT that furry ≠ yiffy. There's totally nothing wrong or even sexual about being in the furry fandom. (Both links are SFW)
And blagh, I've got no real opinion on Abstract art. I like some of it. I don't like some of it. It's subjectivity. But incidentally, even with non-abstract art, some people like some of it and they don't like other parts of it. It's just that in our particular society, representational art has taken a precedence over abstract, for sure. That's just my opinion on why, though. I don't have a scientific backup or whatever. But yeah, different strokes for different folks. I'm not really one to argue the value of abstract art vs. representational art, because I really don't know a whole bunch about abstract, admittedly.
Last edited by Celestial-Fox; 01-18-2012 at 12:06 AM.
*looking at the user name*
Uhhh, lolwat. I'm totally not a furry. Surely that is obvious.
Is Blu Fox a furry?
Is Spidergoth a furry?
Animals in usernames ≠ furry.
Even if the artist knew exactly what he was doing, if the viewer can't compare it to anything, there is no way we can appreciate it without having someone explain it to us. And even then, we might feel differently. That's why I'm saying that it's not a "misconception" that abstract art sometimes looks pointless because accuracy is not something that can be reflected in a non-representational format. There's no way for the viewer to judge if it "looks right" or "looks wrong". Is the composition of this piece okay?
Who the fuck knows except the guy who made it. Only he knows what he was truly trying to create with that. The viewer can only guess. And sometimes people don't want to sit there and guess and pretend like there is some grand scheme behind it when they can't plainly see it.
That's the whole critique against over abstracted art, that they alienate symbols. But there is abstract art that keep symbols and make a clear dialogue with the viewer.
The example work as a over abstracted art work, but what about one that keep symbols?And even then, we might feel differently. That's why I'm saying that it's not a "misconception" that abstract art sometimes looks pointless because accuracy is not something that can be reflected in a non-representational format. There's no way for the viewer to judge if it "looks right" or "looks wrong". Is the composition of this piece okay?
Who the fuck knows except the guy who made it. Only he knows what he was truly trying to create with that. The viewer can only guess. And sometimes people don't want to sit there and guess and pretend like there is some grand scheme behind it when they can't plainly see it.
The whole argument you are doing, is right when we deal with over abstracted work, pieces that can't be read by anyone, but if the artist chose to keep symbols so the work can be understood, and it also delivery it in a abstract format. I think then Abstract art can work as a piece of work with meaning that people can read.
I take this in a bad abstract art and good abstract art, where pieces that keep symbols as they are, are good, while the ones that are just a expression of random lines, are bad abstract art. That's why I believe there is a misconception of Abstract art, and the reason why people believe abstract art is just your example, while there are other examples of abstract art, completely different and understandable.
Abstract art sucks unless it looks like Tron
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks