Abstract art titles...
Nerd Gerl
named "Paper coming out of a printer."
But I don't see paper and I don't see a printer. What are you
painting? The electricity? The noise from the printer? The feelings
from paper jam?
WHAT?!?!?!
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Look at the tv commercials that have no relationship to the product.
What's in a name - a rose by any other name is still a rose.
An abstract painting by any name is still an abstract painting.
If you called one of Rembrandt's great paintings "shit by Rembrendt" it
would still be a great painting but it would not be shit as we know it. I
recall a wedding announcement about Mr. Pepper and Ms Salt getting married.
Funny as we may find them they are just names. A friend was born with the
name Fagg (an old derogatory name for homosexuals) she was quite happy to
marry and use her husbands name: Wood.
So Mr Nerd: lighten up - take life with a smile enjoy the contradictions.
keith
Nerd Gerl <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.0210...@posting.google.com...
Ted E. Behr
says...
>
>How do abstract artists come up with titles? An abstract piece is
>named "Paper coming out of a printer."
>
>But I don't see paper and I don't see a printer.
You obviously lack imagination...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
You make the assumption that the art is in the name. That the art should
reflect the name. I recall the Spanish Inquisition telling an artist that
the name did not match the painting's subject. The artist renamed the
painting and it was accepted.
Art exists in the work itself not in the name. Now we are into a discussion
on "what is art" and you know where that will get us.
We face a dilemma in that the name does not tell us anything and the work
itself which should contain art but may or may not be judged as art by a
specific individual or group because there is no standard agreed to
definition of art.
Now we are down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Art as a concept of beauty defined acceptable principles of aesthetics and
no longer having a standard agreed to meaning no longer exists.
Art is an archaic word that no longer has relevance in the current world of
image making, yet the word is still used and defended with vigour by some
fanatical die-hard art enthusiasts.
An artist calling himself or herself an artist is preferable to an artist
calling himself or herself an artist. You are an artist because you say you
are an artist and artists create art therefore your work is art. If you are
very persuasive many people will believe you and if many people believe you
then you must be an artist.
keith
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:ZLSs9.9492$eg6.4...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >If you called one of Rembrandt's great paintings "shit by Rembrandt" it
> > would still be a great painting but it would not be shit as we know it.
>
> Yes but such works have the chance to speak for themselves.
> Where there is non representational work, "abstract" ,then some sort of
> title, and in most cases a written explanation is required.
> How else would we tell if we were being conned into looking at "shit"?
> I would like to lighten up too. However all I get from abstract is
> despair.
> Take for example the latest URL advertising such works:
> http://art-iste.fr.st/
> The abstract artist deliberately creates shapes, and as such we are
> correct if we look at them seriously in an effort to understand. However,
> if I say cow-pat and you say the artist accidentally split coffee on it,
> then
> where is the art?
>
> Thur
>
>
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in
message
> news:xGLs9.30099$Q3S....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Nerd Gerl
> You are just too logical.
> Look at the tv commercials that have no relationship to the product.
I do. And I laugh at them and call the producers stupid.
> What's in a name - a rose by any other name is still a rose.
> An abstract painting by any name is still an abstract painting.
Yes. But I thought titles were supposed to summarize the artwork. Like
with an essay... you have a conclusion at the end. A conclusion ties
together all the points ***IN*** the paper.
> If you called one of Rembrandt's great paintings "shit by Rembrendt" it
> would still be a great painting but it would not be shit as we know it. I
> recall a wedding announcement about Mr. Pepper and Ms Salt getting married.
> Funny as we may find them they are just names. A friend was born with the
> name Fagg (an old derogatory name for homosexuals) she was quite happy to
> marry and use her husbands name: Wood.
> So Mr Nerd: lighten up - take life with a smile enjoy the contradictions.
>
Not an option. I am on this planet to learn. lol
P.S. I'm a Mrs. Oh, and I loved your website. I bookmarked it.
I'm a little awed by your multiple styles tho... That is an amazing
talent you have - to shift histories, philosophies, and stuff like
that in your artwork. You must be an old soul. :-)
==============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> keith
Nerd Gerl
<20021021103044.272$M...@newsreader.com>...
> Hi, Gerl -
>
> You can consider this explanation as the first installment of the
> explanation of abstract art I still owe you (and Nik).
Thank you. :-)
> Titles? Easy. Abstract (or non-objective) art is, like representational
> art, forms in space. However, in abstract art the paint and the support
> (and any other materials used) *are* the subject. There is no reference to
> the external world, as there is with all types of figurative art. Titles
> are lots of fun because you can pick anything you want. I most often use
> words or phrases that I like the sound of. The big painting on my web title
> page, Water Planet, has a title that has a pleasing ring to me - nothing
> else. I sometimes look in my atlas for cities that I like the sound of, or
> islands, etc. (as with the Cyclades series, El Jebha, Tarifa, etc.). You
> can also call something 'Untitled,' as many do. If you are looking at a
> landscape or model as a basis for your abstract piece, of course you can
> title it after that if you like (Gumpers Pond with Trees, Susie Naked,
> etc.) It is totally arbitrary and up to the artist. [So is naming
> figurative pieces, but if you called your naked angels 'Freight Train II,'
> etc., people might get confused...]
>
> The short answer to your question about understanding abstract art - same
> as understanding figurative art. Nothing to understand - just let it hit
> your eyeballs and enjoy (or not). It's like trying to understand a rose. Of
> course it's fun to *analyze* art, which is a different thing - to break
> down the composition, color harmony, etc. It also adds to enjoyment to know
> something about the artist and his times ... But it's not necessary to the
> enjoyment of the piece. Hope this helps.
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
Well it certainly opened my mind to the "purpose" of abstract art.
Thank you very much. I have wanted an *abstract artist* to explain
this to me for years!
But I notice that when you say, "There is no reference to the external
world..." that frightens me. So there!!! Thank you again. You have
confirmed why I do not prefer this type of art. Most people (I do at
least) depend on the external to validate the internal, right? So when
you make the internal, external, it opens up a new validation?
But what is being validated? Emotions? If I understand this right??
Like, when admirers purchase an abstract, it is because, the abstract
"validated" the emotions inside the collector?
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
patterns displayed in the third eye - the mind's eye.
When Dan says there is no reference to the outside world he poses a
contradiction. He is using materials that exist in the outside world and
processing them through a brain that uses bio-chemical processes that exist
in the outside world but are not seen under normal conditions.
If you take for example a Rembrandt or a Rubins - magnify a highlight large
enough and you will have an abstract painting. If you look at patterns in
coloured rocks you will see an abstract painting - you may even see one of
Dan's. If you look at sky patterns you may also see an abstract painting.
Twenty thousand leagues under the seas references a non existent submarine
that appears real. It was considered by Victorians as illustration because
it did not reference something in their conventional set of objects.
Abstract painting whether it likes it or not references the outside world.
It is a matter of semantics that it does not reference conventional objects
in the outside world.
You say that you are afraid of an art that does not reference objects from
your conventional world. What you really mean to say is that you take words
literally at face value and do not consider that maybe your literal focus on
the meaning of words as well as the writers selection of words may lead to a
communication block.
Language is fun - remember it's all metaphor - and metaphor in language is
like simultaneous contrast in conjunction with the type of light you use to
view a coloured painting - it's a wonder we understand anything.
keith
Nerd Gerl <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.02102...@posting.google.com...