Abstract art.. no meaning?

[Lullaby Chainer]

You always see mockery of abstract art in tv shows and movies.

Yet, the artists swear that each piece has immense meaning.. and the critics apparently see it too.

What do you think? Do you see meaning? Or just pointless paint strokes?

(Feel free to post more abstract art to aid in your opinions.)

[rez]

I don't know. I think the pictures impact me emotionally more so. I feel as though I can't describe the way I feel when seeing those pieces.

For instance, I really really love the first piece. It reminds me of the way genes are structured.

[Jack]

Heh, I liked #1 as well. I think the humorous aspect of abstract art are the people who, seeing it, describe their reaction or what they see in it to a point where it becomes absurd. It almost becomes a Rorschach test. I say just enjoy art for what it means to you. It most likely means something entirely different to everyone else and you all won't agree on a single interpretation anyway.

[CoffeeSaint]

The point of abstract art is that it can be interpreted in so many possible ways that there is no longer any "right" or "wrong" way to see it. If you see it as crap, you're right, it is. If you see it as brilliant, well, it's that, too. This is the purpose of the modernist movement: to have art for art's sake, not for the sake of sending a message, showing one's insight, revealing Truth and Beauty to the world.

The only reason abstract art gains so much cache is because people give it that much power to make us feel like we are part of the in crowd or the out crowd; the art itself makes no such distinction. I think art, like music and literature, requires something from the audience before it can really be meaningful; so if the piece has no meaning for you, then there's your answer. It's all relative.

At least, that's how I've always seen it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Hm, very true..

Also, does it take much effort at all to create a abstract piece of art?

The art above, with no offense to the artists, seems rather simple and without effort. Perhaps they're crying, sweating, and shouting as they painted or created their art but I honestly can't help but think no matter how much emotion they try to feel while creating, it comes down to nearly entirely random paint strokes. The paint strokes themselves can be interpreted and very meaningful means, I won't argue that, but I seriously doubt there's much more going on in the creation process than random strokes of paint. Especially the second piece.

[ericsp23]

There is good abstract art and bad abstract art, just like anything else. Admitedly, there isn't really any standard to judge it against, so everyone has to make thie own judgements based on their tastes.
Just because it is representative doesn't mean that it doesn't have meaning to the artist. And there is also the formal aspect as well.

If you don't like abstract art, thats fine, everyone is entitled to their own taste. But when I hear people say "That isn't really art" I think it makes them sound ignorant and closed minded in my opinion.

The art above, with no offense to the artists, seems rather simple and without effort.

Since when does art have to be complex and difficult? There can be beauty in simplicity as well.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ericsp23 Since when does art have to be complex and difficult? There can be beauty in simplicity as well.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying it's simple, and then it's also effortless.. as it appears. I know of a ton of simple art, but you can still tell there was a lot of effort put into it.

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just making an observation.

[DEEJ85]

Perhaps its like horoscopes.

So vague that any meaning can be attached to it at all and make sense.

[phoenix_fire]

I think that originally, there was some meaning to it. And a few others that have followed and that actually understand the theory can be considered authentic. But since the artwork usually requires very little technical ability, I am afraid that for the most part, the market is flooded with cheap knockoffs.

[Sarah22]

I have a piece of abstract hanging in my room. I don't think about it very often, but the colors matched my room scheme. Also, it kind of reminded me of a bar, and since I have martini glasses and ping pong bar poster, it looked fitting. Some abstract, to me, looks pointless.

[DEEJ85]

There is an Art Program at the college I attend, So I assume there is at least some theory or practicum to teach.

Often I will walk into the foyer and there will be art projects on display. These projects range in types, shapes and sizes. Sometimes one will consist of a bunch of things adhered to other things in a particular shape or pattern. In almost every piece of art I've seen the art has yet to provoke any emotion or feelings of beauty in me. To me they are just things stuck to other things. I do not see art in it.

I have also been to art museums where I've looked at famous paintings and have not noticed much beauty or any amazing insight inside. The prominence and value of the Mona Lisa I only know or recognize because it is practically the most valued piece of art in the world. If I were to gaze at it out of that context I don't think I'd notice anything special.

is there some sort of objective value placed on the content and expertise of these paintings? Or is it entirely subjective, based on the culture and people who make the judgments?

[Hmm]

For some reason, that third abstract painting appeals to me very much.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Hmm For some reason, that third abstract painting appeals to me very much.

It reminds me of a candy tofu sandwich... :eek:

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: DEEJ85 There is an Art Program at the college I attend, So I assume there is at least some theory or practicum to teach. Often I will walk into the foyer and there will be art projects on display. These projects range in types, shapes and sizes. Sometimes one will consist of a bunch of things adhered to other things in a particular shape or pattern. In almost every piece of art I've seen the art has yet to provoke any emotion or feelings of beauty in me. To me they are just things stuck to other things. I do not see art in it. I have also been to art museums where I've looked at famous paintings and have not noticed much beauty or any amazing insight inside. The prominence and value of the Mona Lisa I only know or recognize because it is practically the most valued piece of art in the world. If I were to gaze at it out of that context I don't think I'd notice anything special. is there some sort of objective value placed on the content and expertise of these paintings? Or is it entirely subjective, based on the culture and people who make the judgments?

The expertise of the paintings can indeed be objectively critiqued; it takes just as much brush control and color sense (et cetera et cetera) to make a Jackson Pollock painting (similar to #2, if you don't knwo Pollock's work -- actually, is that a Pollock?) as it does to do something like the Mona Lisa, at least in terms of a sort of tier of artist. Top-tier artists really do all have a great amount of ability; Picasso was a far better draftsman, in terms of his abiltiy to draw from life, than the vast majority of artists who try to paint in his style. That was one reason why he was more successful, and can be seen as "better," even by someone who hates cubism and abstract art.

Now, can the meaning of the paintings be objectively rated and valued? I would say no, but as you mention with your Mona Lisa reference, it's hard to place an objective value on ANY work of art in terms of its emotional impact or its importance as a cultural or artistic artifact, or what have you. I wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for some piece of Star Trek memorabilia, but you know there are plenty of people who would; are they wrong? Are they stupid? Of course not, they just have different tastes and different values. I WOULD pay thousands (millions if I had it) for certain literary artifacts -- a Gutenberg book, for instance, or an illuminated Chaucer, or an original copy of Tamerlane and Other Poems by Poe.

To each their own, I says. I embarrassed the hell out of my wife (she's an artist) when we went to see a Willem de Kooning (famous abstract artist) exhibit at the MOMA in Boston. I stood in front of one of de Kooning's drawings and loudly criticized it as a worthless scribble that he vomited onto the page, and then squinted one eye at and said, "Yeah, that kind of looks like I drew something. Stick a price tag on it!" We got a few dirty looks for that one. But you know what? I was right. That thing was crap.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The expertise of the paintings can indeed be objectively critiqued; it takes just as much brush control and color sense (et cetera et cetera) to make a Jackson Pollock painting (similar to #2, if you don't knwo Pollock's work -- actually, is that a Pollock?) as it does to do something like the Mona Lisa, at least in terms of a sort of tier of artist. Top-tier artists really do all have a great amount of ability; Picasso was a far better draftsman, in terms of his abiltiy to draw from life, than the vast majority of artists who try to paint in his style. That was one reason why he was more successful, and can be seen as "better," even by someone who hates cubism and abstract art. Now, can the meaning of the paintings be objectively rated and valued? I would say no, but as you mention with your Mona Lisa reference, it's hard to place an objective value on ANY work of art in terms of its emotional impact or its importance as a cultural or artistic artifact, or what have you. I wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for some piece of Star Trek memorabilia, but you know there are plenty of people who would; are they wrong? Are they stupid? Of course not, they just have different tastes and different values. I WOULD pay thousands (millions if I had it) for certain literary artifacts -- a Gutenberg book, for instance, or an illuminated Chaucer, or an original copy of Tamerlane and Other Poems by Poe. To each their own, I says. I embarrassed the hell out of my wife (she's an artist) when we went to see a Willem de Kooning (famous abstract artist) exhibit at the MOMA in Boston. I stood in front of one of de Kooning's drawings and loudly criticized it as a worthless scribble that he vomited onto the page, and then squinted one eye at and said, "Yeah, that kind of looks like I drew something. Stick a price tag on it!" We got a few dirty looks for that one. But you know what? I was right. That thing was crap.

Compare this.. (artwork taken from my favorite trading card game, Magic: The Gathering)



To this..




Which artist do you think tries harder? Now, I know there are people that find meaning and inspiration in the second piece.. but seriously, can anyone deny that any retard with a paint brush can scribble on a piece of paper and call it abstract art? It takes years of practice and training and honing of one's talent to create something like the first piece.

Oh and, here's the actual card. :]



She is so sexy.. I've won so many tournaments with her aid back in the day..

[Heather]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer She is so sexy.. I've won so many tournaments with her aid back in the day..

I definately agree with you that some art doesn't seem as though the artist has put a lot of effort into their piece, but, to each his own I guess. I personally am not a fan of abstract art.

By the way, she is sexy. My fiance didn't even know this card was a chick though apparently. Makes me wonder about him. :eek:

[ericsp23]

I'm not sure that the amount of effort an artist puts into a work is really a valid point of criticism. I can see your point to an extent though. If the artist is just scribbling on a piece of paper in the hopes that some fool will pay him some money for it, then I agree, it is a valid critique. But I do think it is patently unfair to assume that that is the attitude that all abstract artists have, and I would never assume that that is the case unless I had some evidence to support it.
Do you have any other information on that painting that you are using to illustrate your point? Who was the artist? What did he name it? Did he make any public comments on the piece? The context is very important in judging any work of art in my opinion. I would need know those things before making any final judgements on a particular piece.

[The Bacon Guy]

As far as I can tell, effort isn't an issue in any context. The purpose of art is to create something which an audience will either find meaningful, or simply nice to look at; not to prove how great or dedicated to his work the artist is. As such, how an artist arrives at his final piece seems irrelevant.

For me, art is about the art; not the artist.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ericsp23 I'm not sure that the amount of effort an artist puts into a work is really a valid point of criticism. I can see your point to an extent though. If the artist is just scribbling on a piece of paper in the hopes that some fool will pay him some money for it, then I agree, it is a valid critique. But I do think it is patently unfair to assume that that is the attitude that all abstract artists have, and I would never assume that that is the case unless I had some evidence to support it.

Quote by: The Bacon Guy As far as I can tell, effort isn't an issue in any context. The purpose of art is to create something which an audience will either find meaningful, or simply nice to look at; not to prove how great or dedicated to his work the artist is. As such, how an artist arrives at his final piece seems irrelevant. For me, art is about the art; not the artist.

Oh, I know. I even said that I would not doubt that many abstract artists are very emotional when painting or creating.. in fact I would assume they're more emotional when painting than other artists. I imagine them pouring their soul into the art, crying, shouting, sweating, etc. I just feel that regardless of how much emotion they have when creating their art, it is hardly more than random strokes of paint. And that it takes very little skill to create an abstract piece of art.. especially compared to other forms of art.

Quote by: ericsp23 Do you have any other information on that painting that you are using to illustrate your point? Who was the artist? What did he name it? Did he make any public comments on the piece? The context is very important in judging any work of art in my opinion. I would need know those things before making any final judgements on a particular piece.

The artist goes by the name, "Brom," (Gerald Brom) and his work can be seen here.

He is one of many many artists who's art is featured in the trading card game, Magic: The Gathering.

In Magic, the card and piece of art is referred to by "Desolation Angel." Though, after viewing his site, I noticed the caption in the shop section refers to the piece as "Black Wing."

I didn't find any public statements from him.

[DEEJ85]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Now, can the meaning of the paintings be objectively rated and valued? I would say no, but as you mention with your Mona Lisa reference, it's hard to place an objective value on ANY work of art in terms of its emotional impact or its importance as a cultural or artistic artifact, or what have you. I wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for some piece of Star Trek memorabilia, but you know there are plenty of people who would; are they wrong? Are they stupid? Of course not, they just have different tastes and different values. I WOULD pay thousands (millions if I had it) for certain literary artifacts -- a Gutenberg book, for instance, or an illuminated Chaucer, or an original copy of Tamerlane and Other Poems by Poe.

Hehe I enjoyed the star trek reference as I am into Star Trek myself (but not to that extent).

Many people will pay big money for star trek items such as your very own klingon forehead ridges (Call Now!). the biggest thing that comes to mind is the William Shattner Kidney Stone.

Apparently a kidney stone from the Shattner was auctioned off for somewhere around $25,000-$50,000. All proceeds went to charity so it made sense.

despite being displayed in world renown Art museums and the fact that the high class art authorities declare something to be a masterpiece, I still will find a well drawn picture of something relevant to myself more valueable then some ambigious smattering of paint.