Abstract "Art"

[dandylion]

Just curious. Do you consider abstract "art" to be a valid form of art? Why or why not?

[DeepPurple]

I think it's art. Then again, what makes art art? I think art belongs in the same category as beauty. It means different things to different people. I've always been drawn to it. I didn't know the correct term for it until recently. I don't see why abstract art can't be considered valid. Some people might not get it or think it looks like a child did it. For me, any art that makes me look at it more than twice and makes me want to keep looking, is art.

[curious1]

Yes. If you look at people like Kandinsky and Lissitsky, you will see a myriad of accomplishment. I think it is art but I don't want Jackson Pollock's up in my house for example, even if I had the money to do so. Certain abstractions have a healing affect. I saw a really interesting battle plan on a chalkboard in the art museum around here that inspired me to go out and buy a chalkboard. I thought it was done very well and it was really effective in putting one in the mindset of someone in army intelligence. Is that art? Sure. It caused me to experience something. Not sure if it is abstract though. But some of the abstract art is really neat to just look at and see other things in. Like looking at nature and seeing projective imagery. I take it with a grain of salt and just enjoy the experience of it. There is so many different abstract artists;I think to write it all off entirely would be a huge loss.

[dandylion]

I'm on the borderline. I consider some abstract pieces to be art, such as Kandinsky's art like curious1 mentioned, but I think pieces like Jackson Pollock's are... nonsense. Being an artist myself, I find it really insulting when someone throws seemingly random things together and call it art. I mean, I'd put a lot of thought and time into a work, and there goes another person just slapping on this and that, glorifying it as something on the same level as my piece (though I don't really think any art is "better" than the other either... so I guess this is why I usually consider abstract pieces to not be art). Not that abstract artists don't put any thought or time into their pieces because they probably do, but most of the time that's what their outcomes scream at me. Sorry if I come off as snotty. :/

[curious1]

I'm on the borderline. I consider some abstract pieces to be art, such as Kandinsky's art like curious1 mentioned, but I think pieces like Jackson Pollock's are... nonsense. Being an artist myself, I find it really insulting when someone throws seemingly random things together and call it art. I mean, I'd put a lot of thought and time into a work, and there goes another person just slapping on this and that, glorifying it as something on the same level as my piece (though I don't really think any art is "better" than the other either... so I guess this is why I usually consider abstract pieces to not be art). Not that abstract artists don't put any thought or time into their pieces because they probably do, but most of the time that's what their outcomes scream at me. Sorry if I come off as snotty. :/

I respect this POV and I think it is only natural you would lean this way as an artist. I have an interesting story that would appall you about a senior art project of a former acquaintance. Everyone else worked really hard on their senior projects and on the last night before it was due, my friend began to work on his. He collected canvas and laid it flat on the floor with wet paint so when people came in and walked across it they created "art". Not sure about the details of how he won't about this or if he used colors different than the floor that should of been noticeable. But art professor gave him an A.

[deicruxified]

i still view it as art.. but then i (imo) consider someone an artist if he/she is a master of realism. i do believe that one has to know how to build structures before they destroy them so that when the work is "destroyed", he or she can rebuild it again...i mean... anhy monkey or dog can just use paint and people call it abstract.

again, imo

[BadMojo]

Just curious. Do you consider abstract "art" to be a valid form of art? Why or why not?
If it holds a special quality.. then yes... otherwise it's just decoration imho.:)

[lancelot]

Abstract art is not a lesser form of art. Abstract art, in my opinion reveals what's in our subconscious. An INTJ should have a field day with Abstract Art.

[demvesalius]

Are we art, or is art, art?

[ElstonGunn]

I think it absolutely is art. That doesn't mean that I think it's any good or that I like it or that I'd want it in my house.

The fact that it apparently doesn't require any explicit exposition of technical skill that's used to make it resemble something from the physical world doesn't make it non-art. That might make it untalented or stupid, but it's still art in my mind.

Similarly, just because it's not very pleasing to look at (or that it's actually displeasing to look at) doesn't make it non-art. Goya's Saturn (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is pretty gross to look at, but it qualifies as art, right?

How realistic does something have to be to count as art? Does it have to look like a photo? Do you draw the line at Monet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) or something? Those really don't look realistic at all, or if they do, you might need a better prescription for your glasses. I could (and do) take that line of thought as far as it'll go-- is the physical form the only thing that's realistic, or is the idea as real, or maybe even more real, than the object itself?


All that being said, I still prefer pictures that look like physical objects. Call me a philistine if you want.

[lancelot]

Are we art, or is art, art?

Yes! We are art, and art is art!

[Uberfuhrer]

Just curious. Do you consider abstract "art" to be a valid form of art? Why or why not?

To me, art is anything that is created out of a preconceived vision. Fantasy art, music, architecture, literature, invention, Hollywood movies, video games, and fetish clothing design are all art to me.

Abstract expressionism, to me, is more like sport. As are such spontaneous expressions such as dance, ceramics, collaging, and independent films that make absolutely no sense because they are made without a script or previz.

[Monte314]

I believe that an indispensable component of true art is person-to-person communication that is mediated by a work product.

One implication of this is that anything that could have been knocked out in a few minutes by a chimp cannot possibly be true art.

[Homini Lupus]

I think art is the search for beauty. By example, a balanced body may be a form of art (even a body builder's one, but I'm not great fan of that). Some forms may be a bit unusual, but as long as they really pursuit beauty, I consider them art. I hate when they pursuit disgust or similar things and they call it art. Art is beuty or, sometimes, fun. Politics is politics and ugliness is ugliness.

[Uberfuhrer]

Bill Watterson said it best, actually: "There is no high art or low art, just art."

[mkay]

I figure if it speaks to someone, it's art. Might not be art to me, but is art to someone else. Doesn't need justification or explanation.

[bricklayer]

As an artist myself here is what I think:

"Abstract art is created by the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."

[Double Victory]

I'm on the borderline. I consider some abstract pieces to be art, such as Kandinsky's art like curious1 mentioned, but I think pieces like Jackson Pollock's are... nonsense. Being an artist myself, I find it really insulting when someone throws seemingly random things together and call it art. I mean, I'd put a lot of thought and time into a work, and there goes another person just slapping on this and that, glorifying it as something on the same level as my piece (though I don't really think any art is "better" than the other either... so I guess this is why I usually consider abstract pieces to not be art). Not that abstract artists don't put any thought or time into their pieces because they probably do, but most of the time that's what their outcomes scream at me. Sorry if I come off as snotty. :/

I couldn't have said it any better.

If the person behind it honestly believes that it means something, and they honestly believe it in a I-did-that-on-purpose way and not a well-this-kind-of-looks-like-it-could-mean-this, convincing-themselves-it-means-something-when-it-doesn't way, then I'm fine with it.

[lancelot]

I believe that an indispensable component of true art is person-to-person communication that is mediated by a work product.

One implication of this is that anything that could have been knocked out in a few minutes by a chimp cannot possibly be true art.

Yes, I agree!





lancelot added to this post, 5 minutes and 37 seconds later...

How realistic does something have to be to count as art? Does it have to look like a photo? Do you draw the line at Monet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) or something? Those really don't look realistic at all, or if they do, you might need a better prescription for your glasses. I could (and do) take that line of thought as far as it'll go-- is the physical form the only thing that's realistic, or is the idea as real, or maybe even more real, than the object itself?

The cool thing about abstract art, is that it gives you insight into a person's subconcious. Abstract art may reveal things about a person that are supressed or filtered out; these things need not be negative or unpleasnat.

[quest ion]

I like to have my own definition of art. And to me, all art is 'abstract'. That's the cool thing about art. There's no right or wrong definition of anything. Everything is fundamentally undefined for you.

[Caesar]

Just curious. Do you consider abstract "art" to be a valid form of art? Why or why not?

I do. While some abstract drawings/paintings are imho too ugly for me to even want to call them art (a la Jackson Pollock), I CAN appreciate the art of some artists whose creations may happen to fall into this category.

[zibber]

I think pieces like Jackson Pollock's are... nonsense. Being an artist myself, I find it really insulting when someone throws seemingly random things together and call it art. I mean, I'd put a lot of thought and time into a work, and there goes another person just slapping on this and that, glorifying it as something on the same level as my piece


The fact that it apparently doesn't require any explicit exposition of technical skill that's used to make it resemble something from the physical world doesn't make it non-art. That might make it untalented or stupid, but it's still art in my mind.

Abstract expressionism, to me, is more like sport. As are such spontaneous expressions such as dance, ceramics, collaging, and independent films that make absolutely no sense because they are made without a script or previz.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.. Maybe it's because I've studied art history for the past three years, but my view of abstract expressionism wildly differs from this, and rightly so, I think. These are the standard arguments against abstraction, and frankly they misrepresent it. I'm not getting into this, but please don't equate realism/figuration to skill. That's the archaic view. Abstract artists also go to art academies, and they also go through a whole development before they reach their particular style. The difference is that figuration is often more approachable than abstraction without any theoretical or conceptual background, but that's the beauty of abstract and conceptual art, the cognitive aspect.

[ssrprotege]

Bill Watterson said it best, actually: "There is no high art or low art, just art."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. People have divided art (music, art, etc) in terms of popularity into "high art" and "low art." I find this frustrating. People create art to communicate thoughts. I don't think means of expressing these and thoughts themselves cannot be valued "high" or "low." There are just preferences to certain music, not necessarily high-level or low-level.

On the abstract art: I think it should belong to the art categories. To reach this conclusion, audience should appreciate the art in a wide perspective. Why would he choose the certain shape? Why those colours? What is the pattern behind those shapes? What may those "symbols" represent? I consider it more like literature full of abstract symbolism. I am more of a beginner in terms of art appreciation, but based on few experiences with abstract art, I will say it's art that requires audience to be a "big-picture" thinker.

[Trym]

Ok, understand this:

In Denmark there was an "artist" who enobeled his poo with 24k gold, fed a dead prisoner to his goldfish, killed 6 goldfishes "live" on stage in blenders, verdigrated a statue with his own urin and filled cans with his own body fat.

Art?

[Josh]

Now THAT guy is a damn artistic genius. Start collection the poo cans, who knows how many millions they will be worth once he dies. Which i hope is soon. /sarcasm

[tp6626]

I can appreciate abstract art. In fact, I think I prefer things that communicate messages in more subtle ways. This is hard to explain. I never wear clothes with writing or blatant messages on them (e.g. band names etc). I much prefer that people have to pick up on subtle clues about me. I think this acts as a kind of filter, filtering out those who are less observant, abstract, perceptive, and have common interests.

As an artist myself here is what I think:

"Abstract art is created by the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."

I definitely disagree with this. There are some forms of modern art that I don't like so much, because I don't connect with the artists thoughts / feelings. However, the moods and emotions that are communicated via abstract art are sometimes amazing, and very difficult to produce.

Plus they're just nice things to have on your wall, that de-clutter the brain when you focus on them. I.e. no 'real world' material artefacts to clogging up your neurons, just pure colours, forms and patterns.

If you think its that easy, have a go at doing a good abstract piece yourself. I bet you you'll find it difficult knowing where to start, and if you finish something, it'll be no Kandinsky or Mondrian!! hehe :)