I'd like to hear from someone who knows art. In my (ignorant, perhaps) opinion, abstract art looks like someone let my baby girl loose with a paintbrush and a pallette. I know it's supposed to be the artist's feelings and moods, but I would also be able to do that. So please explain what makes one abstract painting different than another.
2007-08-21 11:51:36 · 4 answers · asked by writeaway 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
understanding art is an art form on it's own, i am an art historian and i learned that lesson very well. Abstract art is more than the broad picture. Example, a painting that has shapes and colors randomly placed is more than just that. Abstract art is more about the aesthetics than mood. A lot of the time, the artists use certain colors to create a story within the painting. Placement, shape and color are the main ingredients with abstract art. It's a broad vision, but it is portrayed in aesthetic principles. This is probably confusing, but basically, a Jackson Pollack painting probably looks like a bunch of splashed paint. Jackson Pollack actually had a method to his 'madness', he carefully added specific colors and in a specific pattern. I would get a book about Modernism and Abstract art, Modern art paved the way for abstract art, which came about around the 40s-50s, there is a difference between abstract and contemporary art as well, but that is a totally different question. I hope i helped...please do read up on modern art and post modernism. It really helps to understand the 'method to the madness' when you know the history and aesthetic principles behind it. Take care!
2007-08-21 15:01:04 · answer #1 · answered by zoe31984 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are right. Your baby girl could probably do that. She still is very much in contact with what makes an abstract painting express her feelings or at least it would be a painting not hindered by knowledge.
You could not do it. Just try. It is this directness that is needed that makes it so special.
There is more to it but just start there in thinking about it. People who only want to see it as you describe it will never see beyond it. On the other hand there is some 'art' around that is just as you described and has no merit.
2007-08-22 01:41:05 · answer #2 · answered by Puppy Zwolle 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This form of art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses color and form in a non-representational way. In the very early 20th century, the term was more often used to describe art, such as Cubist and Futurist art, that depicts real forms in a simplified or rather reduced way keeping only an allusion of the original natural subject. Such paintings were often claimed to capture something of the depicted objects (immutable intrinsic qualities) rather than its external appearance. Abstract expressionism was the first specifically American movement to achieve worldwide influence and also the one that put New York City at the center of the art world, a role formerly filled by Paris. It was a form of revolution or rebellion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Enjoy!
2007-08-21 19:07:19 · answer #3 · answered by RA 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good abstract art is much, much more than just an expression of emotion.
Inspired abstract art is a study in perfect balance which includes the same elements contained in realistic art - form, colour, contrast, value, harmony, movement, texture... etc.
If you study realistic art, you'll discover those above elements in it. Then go to expressionist art, and you'll see the same elements. From there, go to abstract, and yes! The same rules apply there as well - the elements of good design.
Yes, anyone can randomly splash paint on a canvas. But good abstract art is only born from good design.
2007-08-21 21:27:21 · answer #4 · answered by joyfulpaints 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋