Genre Definitions?
Niall
I am not hung up on defining art
(Its like music, I dont want to be categorised).....
...but...
To me an abstract is a representation
of something you see....Is this true?
So what is a painitng that comes right out of your head
Non figurative?
Curious
Niall
Bernt Oker
says...
>So what is a painitng that comes right out of your head
>Non figurative?
Hmmmm. I just finished a painting yesterday
that is TOTALLY contrived, right out of my
head, informed by my many years of working
with the art mediums. It is a portrait (head
only) of a woman who I have given the
appearance of "the skeptic." I've always loved
women who have the ability to arch one eyebrow
at me when I say or do something they question.
I'm happy enough with it that it's now framed
and hanging where I see it every time I enter
my kitchen - maybe she'll make me stop and
think twice about the sweets I'm after...
I think I'd refer to this as a "figurative"
painting when I'm not calling it a portrait!
Richard
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:11:37 GMT, "Niall"
<aTAKEcaTHIS...@iol.ie> wrote:
>To me an abstract is a representation
>of something you see....Is this true?
No. Abstract art is not supposed to look like anything real.
>So what is a painitng that comes right out of your head
>Non figurative?
It can be realistic or abstract depending on whether it looks like
something real or not. Historical and fantasy painters paint things
out of their imagination, but they're realistic.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:11:37 GMT, "Niall"
><aTAKEcaTHIS...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>>To me an abstract is a representation
>>of something you see....Is this true?
"Abstract" can literally only mean the opposite of "concrete". In the
sense of "abstraction", it's the proces of moving away from the
representational towards a conceptual form. It says nothing about how
far you travel though - is it a stylised Warhol of Elvis, or all the
way to The Rhythm Of The Trees ? When we get as far as Rothko, it's
a question as to whether it has any representational claim at all, or
is just the aesthetically pleasing arrangement of light and colour.
Conceptual art is quite different, although often confused. A urinal
labelled "fountain" isn't a poorly realised craftwork of garden
plumbing, it's a provocation to think on the nature of the found
object vs. the elevation of the created.
>No. Abstract art is not supposed to look like anything real.
Why not ? Very often it's meant to look _like_ something, just not to
look like a straight representation of it. The reasons, and the
direction in which it stops looking like it, can depend on the
artist's intention.
Impressionism was an early semi-abstract technique that used the
skills of classic representational art, yet reduced the semantics of
the image to a mere impression of the (still somewhat
representational) subject. Cubism was a deliberate distortion of the
subject that played on plane and solid geometry. Pointilism, a
representational technique, developed by pushing abstract techniques
back in the opposite direction until they were near indistinguishable
from a brush technique.
>>So what is a painitng that comes right out of your head
>>Non figurative?
An invented figural representation is still figurative. Art makes
little distinction between invention and observation, concentrating
instead on the resentational technique and transform it passes
through.
>It can be realistic or abstract depending on whether it looks like
>something real or not. Historical and fantasy painters paint things
>out of their imagination, but they're realistic.
Try "representational". "Realism " is a question of accuracy, not
intent.