Abstract Art - Are there different genres for Abstract?
Jon
& If so, how do you tell them apart?
Jon
Qpee Doll
>
>Is abstract art a genre of its own, or are there multiple "abstract" genres?
>& If so, how do you tell them apart?
Squinting is one option.
Litsurgery
They are not the same.
Abstractions are taken and still show a reflection of the images they are
abstracted from...eg. Brancusi The Kiss is an abstraction. Where Fitzgeralds
The Hug is non-representational.
THE DOC
RBrac53660
In the history books there is all kinds of terminology for the different types
of abstraction from futurism to cubism and on and on
Mary Linzmeyer
some terminology questions of my own
It not only provides verbal definitions but gives examples and other
reference material in some cases.
Hope this is useful.
Katheryn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Litsurgery <litsu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010209205953...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
again. Generally non-realistic painting that is not abstract (in the
proper sense that you describe) is known as decorative - though some of
it isn't even that.
--
A car that will not go is not a car at all. - Birkett
Karsales (Harrow) Lts. v. Wallis 1956
Alison A Raimes
<litsu...@aol.com> writes
Actually Matti, I don't think that is so. As soon as you put a title
that immediately evokes an image in the mind of the viewer alongside an
abstract work then you make an association with reality, and thus it is
no longer abstract. But you are right to try and make the distinction.
However, it should have been between abstraction and pure abstract art.
There have been a lot of *movements* leading towards Abstract but most
of them are, as you rightly point out, Abstraction. Malevich's work is
a good example of pure abstract.
--
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.com
http://www.egroups.co.uk/group/artlives
Jon
answers instead of being so childish and negative.
From the responses given, I have more to go on. I'll do some more of my own
research as well. I guess that rather than saying that one paints in
abstract, it would probably be more accurate to say that one paints in
abstraction.
Jon
"Jon" <jonpa...@home.net> wrote in message
news:961v2c$2...@news.or.intel.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Thanks for all the posts. It is nice to see people responding with
helpful
> answers instead of being so childish and negative.
>
>
> From the responses given, I have more to go on. I'll do some more of
my own
> research as well. I guess that rather than saying that one paints in
> abstract, it would probably be more accurate to say that one paints in
> abstraction.
>
reflection of subjective experience, is realistic - it may, like some of
Goya's work, be difficult to interpret, being a representation of inner
daemons, however, if you believe that there is a commonality of
subjective experience, it is still approachable.
It is also possible to argue the reverse, and claim that all art is
abstract. Even a hyper-realistic painting is the representation of a
subjective experience and an abstraction from the actual view of
reality. This is, by the way, another reason why photography is not art,
since it, by its very nature, precludes abstraction - though the
argument against this has some force; viz. photography forces its own
interpretation on reality, which is, itself, though mechanical, an
abstraction.
It is an interseting subject as it touches not only on what art may be,
but also on what the interplay between realistic and subjective is and
how much anybody ever manages to trancend the subjective. Not to mention
the role of symbolism in communication - how well does an islamic piece
of decorative art, through its formalism, manage to convey the
subjective experience?
Andrew Werby
Jon wrote in message <964703$d...@news.or.intel.com>...
>Thanks for all the posts. It is nice to see people responding with helpful
>answers instead of being so childish and negative.
>
>From the responses given, I have more to go on. I'll do some more of my
own
>research as well. I guess that rather than saying that one paints in
>abstract, it would probably be more accurate to say that one paints in
>abstraction.
>
>Jon
[More accurate still to say one paints in a fit of abstraction...]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
RBrac53660
>again. Generally non-realistic painting that is not abstract (in the
>proper sense that you describe) is known as decorative - though some of
>it isn't even that.
I'm not sure what your talking about here. R/U talking about semi abstract
futurism color field painting or art novoue or possibly cubism? Please tell me
how any of the above are considered decrative. I'd like to know.
Clive WattsPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net
all photographs have some degree of abstraction
the only real abstraction is in your head
I believe what I have written above, it's the only way I can make sense of
images. Is this a viable viewpoint for anyone else?
Clive Watts
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:6Ykh6.79919$R5.38...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
Clive WattsPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net <clive...@freeuk.com> wrote in
message news:SNDl6.5972$sB4.9...@nnrp4.clara.net...
> all paintings are abstract
> all photographs have some degree of abstraction
> the only real abstraction is in your head
>
> I believe what I have written above, it's the only way I can make
sense of
> images. Is this a viable viewpoint for anyone else?
>
abstraction.
--
Madness is rare in individuals-but in groups, parties, nations and ages
it rules.
- Fredrich Nietzsche