ABSTRACTION - i love it ... it excites me ... one aspect of my 'playtime' in the studio is to investigate this premise - how much can i take away from the original object/landscape and is it important to know what it is, or does the image just appeal to you.
isnt that enough ?
There are many genre of 'abstraction' - this excerpt taken from this site -
The term 'abstract art' - also called "non-objective art", "non-figurative", "non-representational", "geometric abstraction", or "concrete art" - is a rather vague umbrella term for any painting or sculpture which does not portray recognizable objects or scenes. However, as we shall see, there is no clear consensus on the definition, types or aesthetic significance of abstract art.
Picasso thought that there was no such thing, while some art critics take the view that all art is abstract - because, for instance, no painting can hope to be more than a crude summary (abstraction) of what the painter sees. Even mainstream commentators sometimes disagree over whether a canvas should be labelled "expressionist" or "abstract" - take for example the watercolour Ship on Fire (1830, Tate), and the oil painting Snow Storm - Steam Boat off a Harbour's Mouth (1842, Tate), both by JMW Turner (1775-1851). A similar example is Water-Lilies (1916-20, National Gallery, London) by Claude Monet (1840-1926).
Also, there is a sliding scale of abstraction: from semi-abstract to wholly abstract. So even though the theory is relatively clear - abstract art is detached from reality - the practical task of separating abstract from non-abstract can be much more problematical.
as always, i think, its a matter of determining for yourself what you believe, know and understand ... and that is what it is at this time. continuing to explore, read and do your belief, knowing and understanding will change or deepen. i think.
Comments