God - The Great Abstract Artist

Posted in Art Theory on March 27th, 2007

Posted in Just Ranting, Art Theory on March 14th, 2007

Today, far too many are still suspicious about the motives of abstract artists and question the validity of their work. Many will want to dismiss Abstract Art as some lesser art form, as though it is secondary to Realism. Sadly, I feel they miss the point entirely.

As humans, we constantly feel the urge to express ourselves and simple words are never enough. We search out other more effective means of expression. We employ the use of sound, movement and images. So, for visual expression, does photography or Photo-Realism suffice? No, our intensely deep and emotional spiritual selves can’t survive with simple words, sound or images.

We need something more!

Instead of simple speech we write poetry and lyrics to songs, instead of casual gestures we dance with passion, and for the pleasure of our ears we create music. Beyond basic patterns of color, for visual expression, we paint.

What should we paint? Simple copies of what we see in nature? Is that enough for profound creative expression?

Poets don’t write mundane words and phrases that everyone speaks. They create anew.
Dancers don’t simply copy the movement of monkeys. They create new movements.
Musicians don’t mimic birds. They develop new sounds.

So what should a visual artist paint? Copies of nature?

Real artists create new images. They alter what they see to make their artistic statement. They exemplify the color of light, like the Impressionists did. They alter form like Modigliani and Picasso. They create nostalgia like Bouguereau or Rockwell.

Or perhaps … they paint abstract!

Shouldn’t the visual arts follow suit with the other fine arts in artistic expression? Doesn’t it correlate? Why should painting be restricted to only Realism?

Abstract Art affords the artist the freedom to present his ideas without being constrained to what he visually sees. It allows the artist the means by which he creates and invents wonderful new and exciting images.

Abstract Art, like so many other art movements, was developed with the motovation and purpose of human expression. It endeavors to delve into the far reaches of the human soul … and present it to others.

How boring and insipid the art world would be if we faithfully painted only what we see.

As the very purpose of art is revisited and understood, we have no reason to question the validity and immense value of Abstract Art.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Abstract Art is Not Without Rules

Posted in Art Theory on March 7th, 2007

I would like to dispel the somewhat common belief that abstract painters are sloppy, messy, reckless renegades with no regard for rules and formalities. I realize that not everyone shares that sentiment and if you’re not one of them, please excuse the following rant.

The perception described above reminds me of the use of the word “anarchy”. The definition of anarchy isn’t simply the “absence of government”. It is really “…advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation…”

It does not mean “no rule” or “without law”. It simply expects each person to be self-ruled so there isn’t a need for laws. Of course, I’m not advocating anarchism in our society, because since we are human, with all of our moral and social imperfections, any implementation of anarchy would be disastrous. But that’s another subject entirely.

Abstract Art, by many, is indirectly misconstrued to be synonymous with “artistic anarchism” or “creative lawlessness”. True, abstract art departs from the constraints placed on purely figurative styles. By default, abstract art offers up much more freedom in the creative process. The possibilities and variations of outcome are limitless. This wide and unbounded freedom might appear to be anarchist by nature.

But if we continue the analogy, we must realize that freedom does not need to culminate in chaos. Abstract art can have rules and structure. Indeed it needs it. The viability and validity of abstract art lies with each artist. Sure, it provides limitless artistic freedom, but it can’t be without rules. Each artist must define his set of beliefs, his stance, his artistic creed - and he must then fully comply with these self-defined rules. If he doesn’t, he stands the chance of producing mediocre work at best, and endure the wrath or perhaps just a quiet dismissal from art critics and collectors.

Abstract Art not created with some defined rules is not Abstract Art. It’s just canvas and paint. The rules do exist. They are simply artist-defined.

Good abstract art is never an accident. It’s carefully developed and expertly orchestrated.

Sphere: Related Content

8 Comments »

Are Photographers Artists?

Posted in Art Theory on February 28th, 2007

Sure, they may very well be. A good photographer might even be a better artist than a skilled photo-realist painter. That may sound shocking but it’s absolutely true.

Let’s imagine the following experiment.

On location, present a landscape scene to a fine art photographer and a photo-realist painter and ask each of them to produce their best work of art.

The photo-realist, knowing that his method will take some time, will snap a few photos and head out to his studio to commence painting. He is a master at what he does and all he needs is a good photos that he will duplicate faithfully.

Now, for the photographer. This particular fine art photographer is exceptionally skilled at what he does, as well. He is an artist. He’s really intent on producing a work of art, a snapshot will simply not do.

He starts by assessing the view. He will view it from ground level. He’ll climb a tree and get a higher perspective. He’ll consider the best time of day and may even watch the seasons through an entire year before he decides the best time to shoot. Why? Because he’s an artist.
He also carefully selects the film he’ll use, the f-stop and filters. The shot will be very carefully cropped for the best composition. In the lab (or digital photo editor) he’ll painstakingly perfect the image, darkening some portions and altering others until he gets the exact image he’s after.

When finished, the two works are displayed side by side.

Your first thought is that there is no way the photographer can come close to measuring up against the artistic skill of a photo-realist. Maybe not. After all, he just snapped a picture, right? And the painter spent countless hours at the easel to complete his work. How could the photographer ever be considered the better “artist”?

But remember, the photo-realist, as I described him, is not much of an artist; just a highly skilled craftsman and there is indeed a difference.

As expected the photo-realist’s work is flawless. You may be awestruck at the amazing skill of the photo-realist painter, but all he did was to paint an exact copy of the photo. He may have done a bang-up job as a master craftsman, but he didn’t function as a true artist! Everything he did was mechanical, not much different than a photo printer.

The photographer, on the other hand, made every effort to use his tools and skills to produce a work of art. His goal was the creation of of art. He functioned as an artist.

If you don’t agree, imagine this: Show the two works to several people without telling them that one is actually a painting. They will see the photo-realist’s work, which will be a faithful copy of a snapshot, as much less impressive than the photographer’s well-orchestrated, beautifully-crafted photograph.

The fine art photographer, if he indeed is a true artist, will outshine the perfectly-skilled photo-realist every time. The only thing that can change that is if the photo-realist is also a good artist. If so, he too will very carefully orchestrate a convincing and effective work of art rather than to just paint what he sees.

Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

Abstract Artists, Every One of us!

Posted in Just Ranting, General Commentary on February 20th, 2007

Is each and every one of us an abstract artist?

Absolutely!

“How so?” you might ask. “I don’t even paint!”

To me the most simplistic definition of art is the “creative expression of an idea or emotion”. We are all capable of creative expression. We creatively express ourselves on a daily basis. We do it when we speak, laugh, tell a joke, sing, draw, design, dress, cook, paint, dance, compose… We “paint” pictures with words, we move people to tears with poetry. It is often in a rather abstract manner.

Now, some would argue that such a definition causes confusion when trying to determine who is a “professional” artist and who is not. I agree that it complicates things and may seem to belittle serious artists but there is no denying the very essence of art and what it really is. I don’t think art can or should be defined based on who makes money with it or even by who is good at it. The basic qualifying criteria of any artwork, following my simple definition, is whether or not it is successful at being able to express what it is that it attempted to express. Now, what happens is that there are so many instances where this is just barely achieved and other times when it is masterfully done. Is it art in all these instances? I say it is. And yet, we do reserve the right to proclaim one artwork (or performance) as great (maybe only in our own eyes), and another as just not very good at all, based on our response.

The bottom-line is that we are all creative. We say and do things with flair and with color so our true meaning comes through clearly. The way we do it is sometimes unorthodox, we exaggerate, we adlib. We don’t simply “testify” to our thoughts as though we’re in a courtroom. We express it succinctly, with finesse and by abstraction.

So ask yourself, “Me, an Abstract artist?”

You bet!

Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

Abstract Art Isn’t Really Art?

Posted in Just Ranting on February 4th, 2007

There was significant turbulence during the emergence of Modernism in 1890 and especially Abstract Expressionism in 1940, like the trouble Impressionism faced and most other major revolutionary art movements.

And then the dust settled, followed by a better understanding or at least a certain degree of acceptance to the new ideas.

But, today, after several decades, there are still some that insist that art equates to skill and that modern abstract art is a disgraceful mockery of all that is right and good in the art world.

These ideas are utterly ridiculous! Have they forgotten what art is?

All great art was great not because it was the result of expertise and skill but because it was borne out of invention, creative expression, rebellion against the restraints of the current academia!

I read the following statement expressing concern for this dilemma:

“I would prefer there was no art, and no great paintings anywhere in the world, than that the freedoms and liberties that we hold so dear would be lost.” (ARC Chairman, Fred Ross)

Yes, freedom and liberties are vital for art to thrive! There should be no boundaries set for creative expression. In the same way that Rembrandt manipulated light to evoke a sense of space, the way Sargent employed bold yet simple brushstrokes to provide such depth to his works and Bouguereau created astounding luminous skin tones unseen in the natural world, real artists have always had the vision to create new and profound visual stimuli for our contemplation and pleasure. If we dare to stifle creative expression we slur the names of all artists, even the Old Masters and offend their respective works.

I say that, “To stifle creative expression is to bind and gag our very souls.”

Creative expression - that is the key. And you can’t be creative if you simply copy.

So, an abstract painter abstracts an image from nature or his imagination. Because his image doesn’t already exists in nature, he is branded a fraud? How preposterous!

So, why is modern Abstract Art unaccepted by some? Why should realists ever feel threatened by modern abstract artists? I may not care for either the primitive works of Rousseau or the photo-realism of Ralph Goings, but who am I to question whether or not they created good art? The works of Picasso and Matisse don’t diminish my admiration of Sargent, Bouguereau or any of the Old Masters.

Art lovers didn’t need to be convinced or coerced into accepting modern art as some who believe in some big art conspiracy. Even today we celebrate the vision of Monet and sing songs about van Gogh. Why?

They produced great works!

Art appreciation and acceptance isn’t so troublesome in other fields. Great art is well understood in theater and ballet. The “perfect” dancer isn’t as sought after as the dancer who is a true artist. Art is what delineates the technically-correct dancer from the dancer who has skill and passion!

Why aren’t all the best actors the most handsome or the most beautiful? Because creative expression is necessary to portray character. The greatest actors are artists.

Not all great singers stay in tune. They don’t all have perfectly smooth voices. What they do have is the capacity of creative expression. They are artists.

The greatest vocal performer isn’t the one who “copies” more closely. He’s the one who creates a new sound and gets copied. A good songwriter doesn’t take the melody of a mockingbird, put it to musical notation and says, “Look what I wrote!” Rather, he creates an entirely new melody.

Therefore, the greatest artist is not the one that skillfully copies a landscape. He’s the one that creates a new image, abstracted from either nature or his own imagination. Why should he be less creative than artists in other fields? To be known as a true artist he must possess and employ creative expression.

If the qualification of art is hinged directly on the ability to paint what one sees, then van Gogh failed miserably. So did Rembrandt. In fact there are actually very few artists throughout history who could pass the test!

If an musician whistles to imitate a bird, do we call it art? Of course not. Now what if he constructs a catchy melody? Ah, then he has something. He becomes a creative artist.

What we call Classical music is a complete fabrication of artificial sound - creative expression. It’s abstract! Singing is not a natural sound. It is abstracted from nature. Yet, these composers and musicians are considered artists.

What was the source Mozart’s symphonies? Did he hear it from the birds while strolling through the park? No, he created it. He was an artist.

Art is creation. Art is not “a copy of something.”

True artists throughout history, from the Classical to the realists, all understand what art really is and would disagree with those trying to dismiss and discredit modern abstract art.

“All great art is due to the abstraction process.”

Michelangelo is quoted as saying that, “A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.” It’s not the ability to paint that makes an artist. If art was defined simply by the ability to draw, then my HP printer would be a greater artist than Michelangelo.

Here are some interesting quotes that provide some insight…

“The first virtue of a painting is to be a feast for the eyes.”
Delacroix

“As music is the poetry of sound, so is painting the poetry of sight and the subject-matter has nothing to do with harmony of sound or of color.”
James McNeil Whistler

“Art does not reproduce the visible; rather it makes it visible.”
Norma Jean Harris

“Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere.”
Carl Sagan

“Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.”
George Bernard Shaw

“Painting is silent poetry, and poetry is painting that speaks.”
Simonides

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Albert Einstein

“The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.”
Aristotle

Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »

Art IS Abstract!

Posted in Just Ranting on January 28th, 2007

Why would I say that, “Art IS Abstract”?

Well, in my opinion, the only way anything qualifies as art is that it is abstract.

To the degree that an image has been diverted from displaying simple reality, but altered and manipulated to present a new perspective of the subject, abstracted from reality, to that degree, it becomes art.

As long as the artist employs image manipulation for the definite purpose of making his artistic statement and it is perceived and accepted by an audience…to that extent it is art.

On the other hand, even if a so-called artist masters the skill to faithfully reproduce an image and makes no effort to alter or manipulate the image in any way for the purpose of making a statement, he fails to be an artist. Art is not synonymous with the ability to draw or paint.

So, am I saying that a photo-realist is not an artist? Not at all! A photo-realist, as a photographer would, has carefully selected his image, the pose, the angle, lighting, and composition for the work he’ll produce. He won’t waste his time and skill on just any image. The image is artistically orchestrated.

Furthermore, the photo-realist will be very intent on carefully developing his image to imitate a photograph, which is his goal as a photo-realist. He will incorporate the same tonal range characteristics typical of film, as well as barrel distortion and limited depth of field. He purposely manipulates his image to make his artistic statement. The photo-realist does not paint what he sees. His image is abstracted from reality!

Whether a painting is classical, impressionistic, realistic or primitive, it is the abstraction that makes it great.

There can be no art without abstraction. Art is abstract.

Sphere: Related Content

“I Just Don’t Understand Abstract Art!”

Posted in Just Ranting on January 13th, 2007

It seems as though most of us were raised with preconceived ideas as to what art should be. We “learn” that you’re supposed to recognize something in a painting, so we just stand there looking for what we’re supposed to see in the painting, never taking the chance to simply enjoy it.

What a shame!

It’s probably partly related to the right and left-brain phenomenon. We develop our analytical skills to such a degree (for modern-day survival) that our creative and artistic awareness is squelched. Abstract art just doesn’t “compute”. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not logical to our dominant left side brain. So we just dismiss abstract art as something childish, off the wall. It’s easier than trying to understand it, much less appreciate it.

But it’s really easy to understand and appreciate modern abstract art. Appreciating abstract art doesn’t require a class. You don’t need to know the rules of composition or complex color theory. Some of that might admittedly heighten your experience, but all that is needed to appreciate abstract art is an open mind, no thought or analysis or searching for recognizable forms.

Just look and enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

New Year, New Vision

Posted in General Commentary on January 1st, 2007

It’s the season for new beginnings, resolutions, a brighter outlook.

How do you plan to start the New Year?
How do you get inspired?

Perhaps art can help, specifically, abstract art. The main impetus of abstract art is to explore and create new images, new visions, a fresh new view of the world around us and within us. Break away from the mundane. See the world anew.

Viewing abstract art is a great way to trigger new ideas, spark new moods and emotions…a viable source of inspiration. A really profound abstract painting can touch you so deeply, down to your very soul.

Treat yourself to a leisurely stroll through the wondrous world of abstract art.

Here are a few images and links to get you started:

Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Abstract Art for Christmas?

Posted in General Commentary on December 30th, 2006

I was very pleased this holiday season to have a somewhat heightened interest in my abstract paintings, even though most people are busy looking elsewhere for gifts. Abstract art is far from being a typical Christmas gift. The interest was very welcomed, however, when someone actually wants to buy a painting as a Christmas gift, I get a bit nervous.

That’s because appreciating abstract art is a very personal thing. You just can’t convince anyone to like a work of art, especially if it’s abstract art. After all, it really is in the eye of the beholder.

The bottom-line is that buying abstract art for a Christmas gift is a hit-or-miss proposition - very tricky. Even if a friend were to comment favorably about a certain painting, that doesn’t necessarily mean they want to have it.

So, I’m a bit uneasy when selling my work to a third party, especially to someone who hasn’t even seen the artwork. My fear is that it either gets hung where they don’t have to look at it, just pitch it in the closet, or worse yet, dump it into the garbage!

On the other hand, if you have good perception, and can read what a person is about, and can successfully match their character and personality to the “perfect” abstract painting, it could work out very well, and it would be a wonderful gift indeed!

A good abstract painting can really be the proverbial “gift that keeps on giving”. In addition to providing wonderful visual and aesthetic pleasures, paintings don’t need batteries, break down, become obsolete…They will outlive their proud owners and their children!

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Mar
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Galerie Verdun
Abstract Art, Oil Paintings and Fine Sculpture

Abstract Art from Galerie Verdun

Abstract Art Article

Art Quotes

God - The Great Abstract Artist

The Validity of Abstract Art

Abstract Art is Not Without Rules

Are Photographers Artists?

Abstract Artists, Every One of us!

Abstract Art Isn’t Really Art?

Art IS Abstract!

“I Just Don’t Understand Abstract Art!”

New Year, New Vision

Abstract Art for Christmas?

Pages

Art Blogs

Categories

Archives

Meta