Contemporary painting: It's Not Dead Yet, But It's Getting There
lake
before that, there have been painters & painting. It has usually been
associated with religion, or supra-normal reality.
Now that everyone & their brother has jumped on the electric-media
bandwagon, painting has been rudely relegated to the back seat. But
wasn't it Cezanne & Van Gogh who started the whole thing rolling in the
first place?
What really has happened to painting in these past hundred years?
Metaphysically, spiritually, perceptually, socially - where did it go
to? Do we really believe that after a dozen millenia it is going to
disappear because some clever fellows have invented a television? Or a
computer?
I want to discuss what is loosely termed "abstraction". I want to take
a second, third and fourth look at it, try to establish what it really
means, and why it has been neccessary. I want to discuss why nearly
every serious painter of the 20th century has been an "abstract"
painter, when nobody even knows what the hell that word even means.
Personally, I think I know. But I want to hear from others. I think
it's an important question. - Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kay
lake wrote:
:Ever since the beginning of anything we call civilization, and well
:before that, there have been painters & painting. It has usually been
:associated with religion, or supra-normal reality.
:
:Now that everyone & their brother has jumped on the electric-media
:bandwagon, painting has been rudely relegated to the back seat. But
:wasn't it Cezanne & Van Gogh who started the whole thing rolling in the
:first place?
:
:What really has happened to painting in these past hundred years?
:Metaphysically, spiritually, perceptually, socially - where did it go
:to? Do we really believe that after a dozen millenia it is going to
:disappear because some clever fellows have invented a television? Or a
:computer?
That's a good question and opens lively possibilities for debate. When I
studied art history - when we got to late 19th century and forward my mind
was boggled! There seemed to be as movements and "isms" as there were,
combined, from the Prehistoric period. Why has painting changed so much? Why
are they saying it is dead? My first answer, though only speculation, is
that we have made more inventions/discoveries during the past 100 years than
combined, throughout history. Painting/sculpture is or has been influenced
by societal and cultural practices - but, our cultures are merging and not
being as distinct as in the past. Someone 3000 miles can be reading this
within seconds of me sending it. So, lately, the computer has everyone in
awe. I don't see how we can escape the influence in our culture of
electronic media and believe me, I'm not cheering for it, being mostly
ignorant of it all - but will it last? This brings me to the much-lamented
rumor of painting's death. The painters I know who sell are selling more
than ever and they are selling larger. I've said it before, but I'll repeat
myself in my belief that painting will NOT die and has not died simply
because we are a consumerist society. Installations - where will we put it?
How many can we OWN and have space for? Photographs - can't guard against
duplicates and if we are a collector, we love the fact of owning the
one-of-a-kind art. Sculpture - alive and well, though it has been reported
as dead or dying also, but IMO, sculpture isn't as popular as paintings
simply because paintings are easier to hang on a wall to showcase the
collector's ownership. So while a collector may have space for 10
paintings, even large ones, that many sculptures won't fit comfortably.
Also, sculptures are often large and site-specific sculpture is thriving and
becoming more and more publicly funded.
(To be continued)
Kay
Lake
Kay
lake wrote:
(snipped first half)
I want to discuss what is loosely termed "abstraction". I want to take
:a second, third and fourth look at it, try to establish what it really
:means, and why it has been neccessary. I want to discuss why nearly
:every serious painter of the 20th century has been an "abstract"
:painter, when nobody even knows what the hell that word even means.
:
:Personally, I think I know. But I want to hear from others. I think
:it's an important question. - Lake
Yes, it is important and very hard to clarify. I don't think we can come to
agreement on that on this ng but it sure will be interesting to see what
definitions will be applied here. My .02 worth must first separate
abstraction into 2 or 3 categories, which must then be further divided.
Pure abstraction is likely to be totally non-representational or
non-objective such as Mondrian or Malevich and I think Malevich would fit
better because Mondrian did do "Broadway Boogie-Woogie" which DID convey the
feeling of the pulse of the city and/or jazz and Malevich was just the paint
of the paint for the paint.
Then we have abstraction which is representational, though not realistic and
sometimes barely recognizable such as deKooning's "Woman" series and when
you look you can see the monstrous, devouring women, but it is still
abstraction though not non-objective.
I would go on to say that the abstraction of Rothko and Pollock is very
different from Malevich and deKooning and is not so much about the form and
color or even the paint surface, but is the result of emotion as it is
conveyed by these artists in paint and is able to affect viewers (some) on a
purely responsive and personal level.
I am not an abstract painter, yet my work is often called abstracted
because, though somewhat representational and always narrative, the paint
surface is broken up into abstracted planes. So, in that manner, we can also
categorize almost any representational artist such as van Gogh, Lucian
Freud, and any other name we pick out of the air (except the photorealists)
as "abstracting" the images.
Good topic, Lake.
Kay
lake
Perhaps I should wait for more input before jumping back in, but I'm
just too impatient.
Your ideas about the reasons for the confusion in modern painting are
undoubtedly correct. Indeed, all the cultures of the world are
co-mingling today. Placed side by side, as we see them now, art-works
from incredibly diverse cultures call into question each other's
identities. It is a time of deep re-evaluation, I think.
And of course, electric technology has fundamentally altered the
process by which we see art. A certain reading of the Prophet McLuhan
might deduce (and in fact has deduced) that art itself has therefor
somehow changed its nature, that art is now to be equated with "the
latest thing".
But what I am looking for, what I am trying to ferret-out and define,
is the continuity in all this. How can we possibly judge the long-term
worth of say, an Andy Warhol portrait, unless we have clearly
understood its relation to a Rembrandt portrait? Or rather, what kind
of multiple-relations exist among Warhol-Rembrandt-Sargeant-Titian-Van
Gogh-and-Chuck Close? And what was it that these painters were actually
doing, that made them "great"? Surely not just painting portraits!
I'll put the question another way: Is De Kooning closer in spirit, in
feeling, in accomplishment, to Rembrandt, or to Warhol? Is Pollack
closer to Jim Dine, or to Van Gogh? Is Rothko closer to Rauschenberg,
or to Turner?
I think that the critical and political maelstrom in which 20th-century
painting has existed, has tended to obscure rather than to clarify
painting's actual objectives, which have in fact, at this late date,
been all but lost. Let me ammend that - in the first half of the
century it was precocious criticism and politics which obscured
painting - in the second half it has been crass commercialism. But all
to the same sad result: painters no longer know what they are doing.
Of course and thank goodness, there are exceptions. Otherwise painting
actually would be dead. Lake
In article <%9o14.3191$uI1.1...@news2.giganews.com>, "Kay"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Keith O'Connor
I'll add my .02 to yours.
I think the word abstract
is used in two different
contexts. Both contexts
define the meaning as
opposite to
representational The
first one you make
reference to as referring
to abstracting the image.
and as you say has wide
interpretations. The
second concept deals with
exploring the interaction
of materials and graphic
marks in relation to
their impact on the eye.
If we dig deep enough we
find traditional
geometric; organic; and
dynamic structures
forming an under
structure. Which was also
used as an
understructrure for
representational art.
So abstract art is
representational art
without the
representation. In order
to go beyond this, some
artist just hung a blank
canvas on the wall and
said that's art, because
it is contained within an
art displaying
institution.
I agree with you art is
not going to die, there
is just going to be an
enormous variety.
mesken
wrote:
>So abstract art is
>representational art
>without the
>representation. In order
>to go beyond this, some
>artist just hung a blank
>canvas on the wall and
>said that's art, because
>it is contained within an
>art displaying
>institution.
>
That's pretty good Keith, although I view abstract and realistic more
as directions in numbers of ideas about visual reality. But there's no
clear cut answer to give about what exactly is abstract and what
exactly is realistic art. One could even say all art is abstract, one
could also say all art is realistic. It's very easy to see why both
can be true statements at the same time.
Whether something is called realistic or abstract is a matter of
consensus and ofcourse there's a grey area.
Realistic art tends to give more attention to the source ideas of a
visual experience (as much as possible of visual perception), the
abstract art tends to give more attention to the end result of a
visual experience. The scene itself vs the ideas we have about the
scene. But no art is purely realistic and no art is purely abstract.
Both are a scene and both evoke ideas. This fact is proven by the fact
that both can be on a canvas.
The ideas we can have about a scene are many, some might be visual
like: "that area contrasts with that other area because it's light,
the other is dark" (you can make paintings like this :-), some might
be religious like somebody hung to a cross, some might be political,
etc. etc.
The very perception of a scene is a bunch of ideas about that scene,
the whole perception is a mental representation. We see objects,
relations between those objects, colors, etc. All these things are
ideas, reactions of our brain to the input of our eyes, and they lead
to other ideas. In the end we come with a verdict: "This is a hot
woman in red and she wants my sex" :-)
The abstract painter typically focuses on one type of idea (or even
one single idea) and depicts it. The idea might even do without the
observation of a scene to give rise to it. That may sound as if
something completely new is created but it is not for all ideas are
the result of the artist being exposed to reality through his/her
senses. So, no art is truely abstract for its source lies in the
perception of reality. Likewise, the realistic painter also doesn't
need an observation to make a painting, just a lot of knowledge of how
something should look like (and the hope the viewer has the same ideas
:-)
Realistic art can also never be completely realistic for it is through
our senses that we are exposed to reality. We perceive reality. The
perception itself is already an idea. The mere fact that yellow is the
opponent color of blue is an idea only valid in our visual system and
the realistic painter will be very carefull to make it show for if
he/she fails to denotate this property of a scene then the painting
will not seem like a succesfull rendering of the scene (would look
like the painter is blind :-) OTOH "noise" is eliminated by the
realistic painter, and order is given more attention than chaos. Not
all light falling on the retina is of equal importance.
Unlike the abstract painter, the realistic painter wants to
incorporate many ideas at once in the painting: the ideas we have
about visual reality. The more realistic a painter works, the more
ideas he/she incorporates about visual reality (stuff like
perspective, shading, textures, etc). The more is incorporated, the
more realistic it will look and the realistic painter must be very
carefull not to have all these little ideas or details swamping the
main idea.
IMHO that's what separates abstract vs realistic art. Realistic art
incorporates _more_ ideas we have about visual reality while abstract
art gives more attention to one or more ideas by ignoring others. A
tad pole figure is a nice example where the grey area is. Is a tad
pole figure abstract or realistic? On one hand it's clearly a human
figure for the topology is there and basic features (lines as arms and
legs, circle as head, eyes), on the other hand: no shading, no
perspective, no texture.
That's the problem of distinguishing between the two: how many ideas
about visual reality should be incorporated to call something
realistic and how few for abstract? As I already stated, it's a
artificial distinction by consensus.
John Haber
>Unlike the abstract painter, the realistic painter wants to
>incorporate many ideas at once in the painting: the ideas we have
>about visual reality. The more realistic a painter works, the more
>ideas he/she incorporates about visual reality (stuff like
>perspective, shading, textures, etc).
Maybe you need to drop the categories and see the variety of styles,
aims, periods, forms, and sheer painting that have come under the
headings of abstract and realistic -- often with the same painting
annexed to them both.
mesken
wrote:
>Mesken:
>>Unlike the abstract painter, the realistic painter wants to
>>incorporate many ideas at once in the painting: the ideas we have
>>about visual reality. The more realistic a painter works, the more
>>ideas he/she incorporates about visual reality (stuff like
>>perspective, shading, textures, etc).
>
>Maybe you need to drop the categories and see the variety of styles,
>aims, periods, forms, and sheer painting that have come under the
>headings of abstract and realistic -- often with the same painting
>annexed to them both.
>
Yes, the categories abstract and realistic hardly tell anything about
the actual work. They're not completely useless however, if someone
says not to like abstract art then something of Pollock is probably
out of the question, perhaps a Rembrandt will do :-)
John Haber
>Perhaps a Rembrandt will do. :)
Please, send me one! <grin> (Not the ones returned to San Francisco.
They're too beat up now.)
John
Brother Alphabet
lake wrote:
> Ever since the beginning of anything we call civilization, and well
> before that, there have been painters & painting. It has usually been
> associated with religion, or supra-normal reality.
Well, actually, in some cultures it WAS religion...but that's a split
hair.
It's my religion, modernly.
> Now that everyone & their brother has jumped on the electric-media
> bandwagon, painting has been rudely relegated to the back seat.
It has?
Actually, photography is what took painting down a notch (in terms of
usefulness). Intellectual painting was beginning to mutate at just the
right time, just as functional painting was being replaced by the
photograph. Before the camera, the illustrator filled it's role.
Today, the craft of rendering is merely an exercise. It is an IMPORTANT
one which all artists should master, but not one that must necessarily
be exhibited in worthwhile art. Today, using the term "abstract art" to
describe modern painting is about as archaic as using a slide rule to
balance your checkbook.
> But wasn't it Cezanne & Van Gogh who started the whole thing rolling in the
> first place?
Um...no? Some ignoranti like to credit Cezanne et al with the birth of
all things modern, but I disagree. The postimpressionists are certainly
significant to modernity, but those who opened doors were as much
influenced by the oldest of the old masters as they were by 1890s Paris.
Tribal African art can be given just as much credit, as can Japanese
printmaking, etc. There is no singular timeline upon which one thing
leads directly to another.
> What really has happened to painting in these past hundred years?
It has evolved.
> Metaphysically, spiritually, perceptually, socially - where did it go
> to? Do we really believe that after a dozen millenia it is going to
> disappear because some clever fellows have invented a television?
Who are you talking to? Who are you asking? Who thinks television has
replaced painting?
Nothing ever REPLACES painting. Everything effects painting, because
artists, as humans, are bound by their experiences. As we, as modern
artists, experience our modern world, we cannot pretend to be unaffected
by the details of our lives. If technology has done anything for
painting, it has made more variations of it possible. Electricity in
general has done worlds of good for painting (lights?) - Computers are
just tools like automobiles or toaster ovens.
> Or a computer?
This sounds like an argument from 1983 or 1986.
Art encompasses all things. As a living artist, you should embrace
technology and use it for what it is, and what it can do for your work.
> I want to discuss what is loosely termed "abstraction". I want to take
> a second, third and fourth look at it, try to establish what it really
> means, and why it has been neccessary.
All painting is abstraction, loosely. "This is not a pipe."
> I want to discuss why nearly
> every serious painter of the 20th century has been an "abstract"
> painter, when nobody even knows what the hell that word even means.
There is a lengthy definition in most dictionaries, if you don't know.
The first variant is "Considered apart from concrete existence." All
painters are abstract painters. If I paint a picture of you, and it is
"realistic" in every detail, is it you? "This is not a pipe."
> Personally, I think I know. But I want to hear from others. I think
> it's an important question. - Lake
I think it's a yawn.
Hutto