Art Lovers discussion
Questions from the Met
>
Are you drawn to abstract art? Or do you prefer more "realistic" depictions?
date
newest »
newest »
Both! But mystery and enigma of abstract art creates a lot of interest to me.
I can't definitively answer this questions. I like and appreciate both forms. In a way, the more abstract the piece is, the more it makes me contemplate, it makes me more pensive. And on the other hand, if it is just out there, like a still-life, I don't have a whole lot to contemplate but I can still appreciate it. I prefer some still-life pieces to others based on the composition, the colors, the lighting, etc. They can also make good accent pieces for decor (which I like).
There is always Impressionist paintings which are 'pretty' to look at. They are calming and easy-on-the-eyes, but don't leave a whole lot to study.
When I was first in college and really got into art, I was dating a guy whose father collected art. In fact, I found his father a lot more intriguing than the man I was dating! I would go to see my boyfriend and his dad would open the door and invite me in to introduce me to the new piece of art he had just acquired so we would just sit and discuss it. He had eclectic taste, a lot of abstract, and I loved it! I could scrutinize and dissect this work all night without ever going out with the guy I was dating at all.
The Dream
Henri Rousseau
1910
I don't know if this piece is even in the right thread. I was just looking through art that I like. This piece isn't 'realistic' but it definitely isn't abstract. This is the kind of art I mostly prefer. It gives a lot to contemplate. But again, I appreciate all kinds.
(And I was just thinking of this piece since you mentioned Rousseau in the other thread, Geoffrey)
I am slightly more drawn to good abstract art, but mostly drawn to art that straddles the two.I immensely enjoy the works of Holly Roberts, Modigliani, Guston's later works, Rosenquist's more recent work, Aaron Siskind's wall studies, Francesco Toledo, Francesco Clemente, etc.
Meena wrote: "Both! But mystery and enigma of abstract art creates a lot of interest to me."It Is interesting, that's for sure! Do you know what it is about abstract art that you find enigmatic, Meena?
I just threw a few up there, I'd be interested to know what anyone thinks of some of the above or any others you would like to comment on?
I have always been enthralled by the seemingly magical ability of at the artist to create life on a flat surface. As I studied art history I came to appreciate that sometimes the life created was an inner one. Over time I have become disinterested in contemporary art, feeling it is more about the cult of the artist and the business of art than a meaningful expression I can share in. Photorealism lacks the inner expression I am looking for. Like Geoffrey says, " I like art that straddles the two."
Heather wrote: "The DreamHenri Rousseau
1910
I don't know if this piece is even in the right thread. I was just looking through art that I like. This piece isn't 'realistic' but it definitely isn't abstract. Thi..."
that was the piece that I was thinking of when discussing animals in art. Other than that, perhaps the blue dog which is famous in southern USA.
Both.Depends on my mood ,I think.
I esp like landscape abstract arts... the minimal lines and all.
In abstract arts its usually the colour and how it works together ,that attracts me...
I agree about the colors in abstract art. They can really make a difference if I like or appreciate it or not.
And about the abstract landscapes, I would take that over realistic ones any day. Good point!
Kristine wrote: "I have always been enthralled by the seemingly magical ability of at the artist to create life on a flat surface. As I studied art history I came to appreciate that sometimes the life created was a..."What you say is many a time could be true but I would not reject entire contemporary art for that.
I like both. Two of my favorite painters are Mark Rothko and Johannes Vermeer. They seem to be at polar opposites, but are they really?
Chris wrote: "I like both. Two of my favorite painters are Mark Rothko and Johannes Vermeer. They seem to be at polar opposites, but are they really?"True, they do seem very different. How do you see them as similar, Chris?
Meena wrote: "What you say is many a time could be true but I would not reject entire contemporary art for that. " Kristine wrote "Over time I have become disinterested in contemporary art, feeling it is more about the cult of the artist and the business of art than a meaningful expression I can share in. Photorealism lacks the inner expression I am looking for. "The way I see it is Kristine is only expressing how she sees contemporary art, how it speaks or doesn't speak to her as other art does, in her opinion. I don't think she is speaking for everyone as in "this is contemporary art". And I see what she is saying.
But I also see what you are saying, Meena, in that there is some contemporary art that 'says' something. I can appreciate some of it. It doesn't necessarily mean I 'like' it, it's not something I'd want in my living room or something I'd sit and stare at, but usually when I learn the motives or history behind the intent of the artist in creating it (if there is one), I appreciate it more.
For example, Piss Christ is rather offensive to me. I don't like to look at it. But I can appreciate it after learning the artist's meaning behind the reason he created it. This is what he said it meant: the image aimed to represent how society has cheapened the image of Christ and the hypocrisy of followers who twist his words to fit their own purpose. (Not exactly in his own words) Now, I think that is interesting and gives me something to contemplate.
Is there an example of contemporary art that 'speaks' to you, Meena, that you can think of that doesn't just do what Kristine says with which you disagree?
Heather wrote: "I just threw a few up there, I'd be interested to know what anyone thinks of some of the above or any others you would like to comment on?"The mountain scene painting perhaps best illustrates my idea of artwork that straddles the two, but is not my favorite. The Gaugin is.
I don't particularly like the color scheme of the vista. The mountain on the right is miscolored in my estimation. The color brightness is distracting and brings the eye's attention to it, countermanding the artist's own intent. had the yellow, orange and green been darker hues, the painting would have been a better success.
As for the undulating stripey lines.....ho hum
Chris wrote: "I like both. Two of my favorite painters are Mark Rothko and Johannes Vermeer. They seem to be at polar opposites, but are they really?"I love Vermeer too.. but I like Jackson Pollock more than Mark Rothko.Its the colors and the flow of lines that makes one work more for me,I think.
Oh..Just checked Paul Gaugin's work.. love the colrs in his work..And of the above you posted Heather,I like
Paul Gaugin
the still life
Then, the blue patch.
I do like the colors in the mountain painting..but for me they don't work as mountains..unfortunately I see watermelon..the bright red and greens made me see that the first time I looked at it,and now I keep seeing it everytime I look at it .So...
It’s interesting what you said about landscape abstract art yesterday, Seriusedward. About the lines and color. And today you also mentioned you like Pollock better than Rothko because of the lines. I think you prefer lines!Watermelon...hmmm
Geoffrey wrote: "As for the undulating stripey lines.....ho hum"I agree, except I would like it if the colors were more vibrant. I actually like the squiggly lines and the way it moves my eyes. But the colors themselves are ho hum.
Love the Cezanne and the Gaugauin. The landscape looks pretty inept to me. I think Rothko makes beautiful decorative finishes to hang above the couch in a modern home. The squiggles would make a nice shower curtain. Outside of it's progression in art history, as Geoffrey succinctly put it..Ho Hum. One point I would like to make. Those of us who are bored by non-representational art are not necessarily ignorant and unsophisticated. I think it is sad that one can go to art school today and hear "merely illustrative" thrown disparagingly about by teachers who are unskilled in representational work. I say, non-representational art is "merely decorative." Part of the problem with the general public being unsupportive of the arts is this bias in favor of "contemporary" art. One more point. There is nothing new about "contemporary" art. It has all been done. Nothing left to do but shock, like "Piss Christ". I don't care about the motivation. There is no skill there. To me therefore, no art. Of course, everyone has a right to their opinion.
Heather wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "As for the undulating stripey lines.....ho hum"I agree, except I would like it if the colors were more vibrant. I actually like the squiggly lines and the way it moves my eyes. B..."
Yes, thats whatI thought too.
Kristine wrote: "Love the Cezanne and the Gaugauin. The landscape looks pretty inept to me. I think Rothko makes beautiful decorative finishes to hang above the couch in a modern home. The squiggles would make a ni..."Yes.
All the different artforms should be equally valued ... all this focus on "being original" is just too much..
Everything has been done already ,really.. nothing is original... better to accept it..
And shock for shocks sake is not my favorite trope in anything be it art or book or others.
Skill and technique should be equally valued as concepts.. as long as both are creative, what matter🤷♀️
And I am not a fan of artists being valued just because he has cult or just be ause he is famous
Kind of thing either..
I’m curious and maybe this is common knowledge that I’m just not sure about. But what kind of art would David Hockneys be considered? He’s not ‘shocking’ and I believe he displays a lot of talent. IMO his work is original but not any past movement... has it been assigned to a particular movement?
Pop art is what is given in the wikipedia ,Heather..Will it fit?
siriusedward wrote: "Pop art is what is given in the wikipedia ,Heather..Will it fit?"
Oh, well I guess it fits better than any others I could think of... What do you think?
And I didn't even think to look on Wikipedia! haha Good thinking!
after a career that started with pop art and went on to define a Californian aesthetic, trail-blazed the use of gay themes, included design work for opera and ballet, made innovative use of new technologies, questioned art-historical certainties about Old Master technique and continues to display a restless energy From this article (The Guardian)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theg...
siriusedward wrote: "after a career that started with pop art and went on to define a Californian aesthetic, trail-blazed the use of gay themes, included design work for opera and ballet, made innovative use of new tec..."That makes sense, I think that's well put. It does defy traditional technique and art-historical certainties...
I wonder what it means by 'new technologies'?
Yes, I believe it does contain 'restless energy'!
Both for different reasons. The classical / conventional form can kind of point to the development of early to modern art in context with social history. The abstract for breaking convention and challenging those steadfast rules set by academies.
Inkspill wrote: "Both for different reasons. The classical / conventional form can kind of point to the development of early to modern art in context with social history. The abstract for breaking convention and ch..."Inkspill! Good to hear from you again!
I love abstract, nonrepresentational and realism. They all have merit. What I don’t like is sappy, clichéd, boring, sentimentalized, or incompetent art. My thesis show was nonrepresentational. My later work was realism.
I’m curious, and this may be common knowledge among those well-versed in the fine arts, but as I don’t even have a degree in the subject let alone a career, per your thesis Ruth, how do you define ‘nonrepresentational’?
When I was taking Art History courses nonrepresentational was defined as having no recognizable objects. Mondrian’s arrangements of red, blue, yellow rectangles, or Pollock’s drip paintings, for example. Abstract would be work that is based in the real but takes liberties with it, such as Cubism. The distinction seems to have mostly gone by the wayside, but I think it’s a useful one.
Oh, I understand. That’s a good definitive distinction.
Heather wrote: "I’m curious and maybe this is common knowledge that I’m just not sure about. But what kind of art would David Hockneys be considered? He’s not ‘shocking’ and I believe he displays a lot of talent. ..."Hardedge
What’s that, Geoffrey? Is that one of your witty comments, or some ‘movement’ I don’t know about?
Thank you! Wow, I learned something new today! I can say I really like hard-edge painting. I’ve seen it with a few artists and I’ve really liked how it’s done. It’s nice to know there is a name to put to it. Thank you both, Geoffrey and Connie!
That was really interesting. And I like all his portraits of different people in his life from family members to his dentist and even the curator of the museum.He took 20 hours to paint each one, though the one man only sat for 2 of the 3 days. His watch showing in the painting demonstrated his impatience. Interesting.
And the way he explained that portraiture is different than photographs in that photos capture a second, a glance at the face or personality of a person, whereas a portrait shows 20 hours of the personality, what the person thinks, how they act, move, their being over a time period. That shows a lot more about a person.
He also says: "The discussion about painting is dead."And at the end: "there's nothing new really..."
I really think he's a greater artist than Koons or Hirst!
Dirk wrote: "He also says: "The discussion about painting is dead."And at the end: "there's nothing new really..."
I really think he's a greater artist than Koons or Hirst!"
Yes, by all means.
Heather wrote: "Inkspill! Good to hear from you again!"Hi Heather, I try and be around as much as I can, me and my chaotic life :)
BTW, this is a really good question. I'm slowly getting myself familiar with History of Art - not knowing how big a subject it is, but interesting.
Dirk wrote: "In 2018 Hockney had a big exhibition in LA:https://youtu.be/P2vPPviP9B8"
And the year before it was at:
https://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/exhibition...
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate...
I saw the one at Tate, the place was crowded but it was good to see a huge collection of his work from his early years to fairly recent.
Cool! Thank you for posting that, Inkspill! It was nice to see so many of his paintings together like that at the Tate. It would be incredible to be there in person! I liked the Model with Unfinished Self-Portrait. Interesting to see him in the background.
Heather wrote: "I liked the Model with Unfinished Self-Portrait. Interesting to see him in the background."I remember that one, it took me awhile to realise it was unfinished, I liked the contrast with the back and foreground, especially with the use of the colour blue. I also liked the photo collages, seeing them online / books and then seeing them for real - what a difference!!! - that took me by surprise.
Are you drawn to abstract art? Or do you prefer more "realistic" depictions?