What Is Abstract Art? One Artists Point Of View
So many people must be asking this question all the time ... and
not getting satifactory answers because I keep seeing articles
on the subject.
So, to add to the mix, I thought that, because I am an Abstract
Artist, I would give my answer.
First lets see what the official version has to say. The second
definition of "abstract" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary says
"Idealistic, not practical; abstruse; (Art etc.) free from
representational qualities" And it is this last description I
want to look at.
That which is free from representational qualities is a picture
(or other type of art discipline) that does not depict any
recognisable image such as a figure, building, or sky. There is
no purposeful reference to anything physically particular.
Jackson Pollock, for instance, was one of the first abstract
artists and produced the finest of examples... take a look at
this: www.nga.g
ov/feature/pollock/painting.html
If you study this image closely it will soon become apparent
that he randomly dripped paint onto a board laying flat on the
floor. And if you read up a bit about him you will find that he
even suspended paint-filled cans above a board, punched holes in
the bottom of the can, and allowed the cans to swing, or be
nudged, the paint slowly dripping to give a totally
no-representative image. The important thing to remember here is
that he had no intention of producing any kind likeness to
anything physical whatsoever. So this style of art is truly an
abstract work.
The difficulty comes when a piece of art is produced in a very
loose and, even, child like way. Some might regard it as
abstract. Here is an example of what I believe is NOT abstract
art: go to www.guzzardi.it/arte/
then on the left side click on "Artisti Ceris" then click "D" go
to the fourth name from the bottom "Jean Dubuffet" and click
"Art Brut" there you will find three images of his work ... each
one depicts roughly painted figures and faces, and although the
left hand image looks like imageless lines I do believe there
are faces to be seen there (Don't get me wrong - Jean Dubuffet
produced many abstract works ... in fact that is what he was
most famous for ... it's just that these examples are not).
Some might call these Dubuffet paintings semi-abstract - but I
do not. For me there is no such thing - either the picture does
not represent anything ... or it does - no matter how basic.
Another puzzle might be the later works of Mark Rothko. Look
here: http://www.nga.
gov/feature/rothko/late7.shtm Some might argue that a basic
rectangular shape could be regarded as a representational image.
But you need to read about his life and philosophy to understand
that he was not painting rectangles but what has become known as
colour fields. The scale of his massive works and the fact that
he gave up even titling his pieces should dispell any
possibility of his work being anything other than the purer form
of abstract art.
I would like to finish with one of my own enigmatic examples: www.ablot.com/passion3.h
tm in which I have sort to "portray" the idea of deep or
spiritual movement. Such an explanation is, of course, dangerous
in that I have used words like "portray", "spiritual" and
"movement" - all of these have associations ... but not
necessarily physical ones! It is my belief that there is a
relationship to be had with my spirit ... and it is the purist
form of abstraction. You can find out more about that in my blog
on my website.
The only other thing to say here is that the abstract artist is
seeking to put on canvas such non-figurative "imagery" as
emotion, thought, the greater self, anarchy, and total
randomness ... to name but a few. And I intend to examine these
"non-figures" in a bit more detail in my articles starting with
"How to produce an abstract image - Part 2" You will be very
welcome to come along and read it!