Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 08-28-2006, 09:48 PM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hi, This thread kills me. It pisses me off.
First of all, good work is good work, whether it be realistic or non-objective.
Picasso NEVER did non-obj work. All his pieces had realistic imagery in them. All be it, distorted or changed in one way or another. THAT'S CALLED CREATIVITY!
Picasso hated Pollock and DeKooning's work.
I do non-obj work, but I was trained in realism and know how to draw.
I draw all the time.
Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but for all of you realists out there who don't understand non-obj art and bitch about it, why don't you start by getting an education, looking at art and reading about it.
After all, The first piece of non-obj work was done by either Malevich or Kandinsky (ever heard of them?) around the time of WW ONE! That's a few years ago! I can't believe this discussion is even happening!
You do know that when you, oh lets say, sculpt a portrait OR paint a landscape, you are making a sculpture or a painting, you are not creating a person or a tree.
Artistic license comes into play to give the FEELING and the LOOK of the person or the landscape. IT IS AN ABSTRACTION!
Have a great day,
and don't bother this curmudgeon with any more nonsense.
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-28-2006, 11:44 PM
JasonGillespie's Avatar
JasonGillespie JasonGillespie is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 429
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Scout,
You're right. There is a greater degree of subjectivity built into creating abstracted art....which in turn makes for a lot of grey area when critiquing it. A good and certain thing is....color theory never changes nor does a pleasing/appropriate placed line, shape, form, or value relationship, etc. The relationships between the various elements that go into to creating art are based in science and our optical/mental perception reads them accordingly. When these are misused due to ignorance they show up...even in abstract work. It is easier to get away with more doing abstracted work, but if the viewer is savvy, the artist's skill or lack there of will still be obvious.


fritchie,

I'd say you got it right. No disagreement here. Your first sentence in the last paragraph rang especially true....
Quote:
The real conflict, it seems to me, arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor “abstract” than “realistic” sculpture is produced and installed for the public.
That would be it in a nutshell.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-29-2006, 04:36 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I personally think that part of the problem for realism in the 20th century was a crisis in confidence, and this fatally undermined it at the forefront of art history. The 20th century saw the development of a new scientific elite, who rewrote the nature of ‘reality’ (yep, it’s not what you see out there at all, folks!). Einstein rewrote time/space; the development of biology and pyschology rewrote how we relate to the world and see it. Eventually modernism, and then postmodernism, pointed out that there is no reality to depict (or if there is, you probably invented it, and are in any case only asserting your own narrative over others, and your own world view over others). Well, that left traditional realism precisely, well, nowhere. The result: just as photography undermined one aspect of realism's domain in the nineteenth century, the artist’s claim to representation was lost. Scientific formulae replaced art for the representation of reality. The result of this: representational art became a backwater (no offence). It’s legitimacy was fatally undermined for all artists who took the relation of their art to ‘things as they are’ seriously. Of course, statuary continues, and strict realism in various forms is still a joy to behold. It just doesn’t make sense in the modern world. As with medieval and Renaissance art, the world view that underpins our age dictates the art. Realism is the past because the confidence in appearances that formed it has gone. All gone. And I’m not sure what to feel about it either, or HOW to feel about it, since I may be just another person asserting my own narrative. Jacob Bronowski wrote, in the 1970s, discussing the implications of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle for thought and knowledge, that there is only one thing you can now be sure of, and that is this: if you think you are right, you are certainly wrong. This is where we are, then - assured realistic surfaces? They are just wrong!

Modern abstraction perhaps starts with Cubism, That was Picasso/Braque's attempt to deal with the crisis in point of view (a very 20th century dilemma) and an attempt to apply a (pseudo) scientific approach to representation. After this, and the African experiments in cross-cultural experimentation, the limitations and weaknesses in European representational art were foregrounded, with the result that even those who continued to commit to figurative work (Picasso;Hockney, etc) could never do it unselfconsciously ever again. It's worth remembering that Picasso abandoned realism - that's were he started. His world view became 'modern', and he sensed before most others, that this meant realism must go.

Last edited by Cantab : 08-29-2006 at 05:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-29-2006, 05:40 AM
anatomist1 anatomist1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 604
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING.
I think this is dogmatic art school nonsense. I can't draw at all. Never could. Yet, the first time I picked up a bar of Ivory soap and a pocket knife I carved a decent bodybuilder's torso and arm in a few hours. Today, I've made well over 100 completed sculptures in mixed media, clay, wood, steel, etc... using everything from 3D models to pictures to no models at all. I still can't draw, and see no reason to even try.

I conceptualize 3D objects in 3D. My process for making them has to do with looking at the sculpture from thousands of angles and making thousands of tiny improvements and corrections to the object over time. Drawing has to do with all kinds of little tricks and skills to render 3D into 2D, mostly doing so using a few decisive lines. It seems to me like a completely unrelated process and skill. The only drawings I ever have any use for are exploded-view drafting style drawings, which I sometimes make to help plan and build furniture.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-29-2006, 06:39 AM
Cantab's Avatar
Cantab Cantab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 440
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

You may be right anatomist1 - I know of many sculptors who have an astonishing eye for the form. I don't, and an jealous!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:09 AM
MountainSong's Avatar
MountainSong MountainSong is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seoul South Korea
Posts: 363
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I’m with Ironman here. Discussions about which is better realism or abstractionism are just irritating. It begs a person to choose one or the other. *rollseyes*

Every genre has something to offer, fauvism, impressionism, cubism, abstractionism, Dadaism and on and on.

New genres were developed because realism didn’t say enough and couldn’t say enough. Each new genre has pulled the artistic conversation/experience forward and made it current to the culture it was born into, they represented a new level of artistic understanding at that time, which in time led to the development of the next -ism. The Avante Garde leads the art world. It’s the cutting edge of artistic development and thought.

Without understanding what has been, why and which developments led to what how can I as an artist claim to understand my field or ever expect to do anything which is not a regurgitation of something done a thousand time over and probebly done better?
I consider it my responsibility as a professional artist to educate myself in the arts. No matter what particular ism I ultimately choose to settle in it will be done best and with authority when I’m armed with the current available knowledge and comprehension of the arts. One doesn’t have to go to art school to become an important artist but one had best know a little bit about the art world if they want to move ahead of the pack.

For Springfield, I can't think of any abstractionist who are/were worth their weight who didn't pay their dues in realism. Most of them around ten years. It's an important stepping stone for comprehending abstrationism.
__________________
Fetchplex (fech' pleks) - n. State of momentary confusion in a dog whose owner has faked throwing the ball and palmed it behind his back.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:34 AM
Chashab Chashab is offline
Level 3 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 35
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPRINGFIELD
I would feel a lot better if an abstract artist started out doing realistic art first.
This is sometimes the case, as with Picasso. And I agree with you: People should start with realism. It is a discipline and it will go far in tightening a person's hand/eye coordination and sense of scale and proportion. (I see now G.Murdoch has already mentioned this.)

I wonder if the OP wouldn't have been better worded to say "Realism or 'non-representational'" art, instead of abstract? This is how I learned it. However, as I "mature," I'm not certain the distiction between non-representational and abstract is very significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arcdawg
It takes more of a creative mind to interpet abstract art as compared to realism.
This is actually my wife's take on realism; she has no formal artistic training, FWIW.

I'm not sure if you've worded it quite correctly though . . . maybe I just don't like the wording because it comes across as "artist as genius," which is a concept I won't buy into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scout
I have to agree that mixing the two is fascinating.
This is one reason I REALLY like Rodin's "Danaide."

Theoretically, I think someone could argue that even realism is abstract . . . as Jason said (and fritchie later notes):

Also I want to point out how two seemingly antagonistic concepts, (realism and abstraction), are really bound up together...each integral to the other for their meaning.

. . . and Robert:

[I . . . that at the root of all good realistic art is abstraction.[/i]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountshang
I'm not sure why the pottery traditions are usually left out of such discussions -- as they seem, to me, to continue to offer the best examples of non-representational sculpture.
I'd venture an educated guess and say that it has to do with pottery being viewed by contemporary minds as 95% functional, even if beautiful. As I recall from my ceramics classes, we talked of historical pottery in technical terms more than "artistic" terms. Not so much the modern stuff . . . perhaps we need to distinguish the two. My favorite ceramics prof does sculptural dinnerware . . . which blurs the line between art and craft . . . which is part of his intention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonGillespie
Abstraction is closer, in my mind, to music than the traditional way of creating art.
Fascinating thought . . . sounds like something I would think . . . will have to think on it!

And I also disagree that "The only way to prove that one is rendering thier private special vision with any accuracy, is to have proven skill rendering common objects." Although I can't say why at the moment . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritchie
Even Michelangelo’s David, probably the epitome of “realism” in figuration, color aside, is abstracted to a high degree. That is, it shows the sculptor’s concept of an ideal figure and, though many real persons might be found at any time who resemble David, each will deviate in obvious ways when compared.
Not only this, "David's" proportions are, IIRC, intentionally abstracted in order to make him look more "real" to the viewer. This because of the scale of the piece, and the viewer looking so far up to his face . . . and the nature of perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Hi, This thread kills me. It pisses me off.
Er, then, maybe you should find a forum where people don't ponder the mysterious so much . . . if you don't find interest in such theoretical discussions . . .

anatomist1's response to the idea that "Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING" is appropriate — but as I began this lengthy post will I also end it: There is great value in the discipline of realism as a student.
__________________
TheAestheticElevator.com
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:35 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hi, There is a quote in Jason Gillespie's post

"The real conflict, it seems to me arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor "abstract" than "realistic" sculpture is produced and installed for the public."

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE PUBLIC CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD FIGURATIVE WORK" ANY MORE THAN THEY CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD NON-OBJ WORK"?

Hi Anatomist1, You must be the next Michelangelo, oops, no, that can't be, he used to draw, and for that matter so did Rodin, Moore, Smith and probably every major sculptor we've ever heard of. If it was good enough for them, I guess for my own humble self, it's good enough for me to learn how and to draw on a daily basis.
Drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist.
"Dogmatic art school nonsense", I don't think so!
But that's okay, limit yourself and your development as an artist.
Who cares?
I was going to answer my question with "not me!" but since I'm answering your post about drawing, I obviously do, and passionately.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:45 AM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hi Chasab, I have to laugh at what you said to me, But in this day and age I find it incredible that this discussion is even taking place. Of course, you're right, I could just not open this thread, but it's CATNIP!

Hi Mountainsong, I agree,Thank you!

Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:51 AM
HappySculpting's Avatar
HappySculpting HappySculpting is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 450
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I think it's fascinating that Anatomist doesn't draw, in yet is adept at sculpture. I personally don't know of any sculptor that doesn't draw so it is intriqueing to me. Another thread could be made on the topic of "Are good drawing skills necessary to be a fantastic sculptor?"

Most artists(that I know) have had an interest in art since they were young and this usually means that color crayons, finger painting, and learning to sketch was their first kind of art and then they grew up and branched out from there.

But perhaps Anatomist started his interest in art in a different way or later in life and learned to "draw" in 3D. Even though he says he can't draw, I bet if push came to shove, he could draw something awesome because he's learned all about line and form sculpture.

(I think it's better to ask questions than make put down statements. Can we keep the forum on a courteous level for the benefit of all? Just my personal taste. )
__________________
Tamara
My Website My Blog
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-29-2006, 11:25 AM
Chashab Chashab is offline
Level 3 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 35
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Hi Chasab, I have to laugh at what you said to me, But in this day and age I find it incredible that this discussion is even taking place. Of course, you're right, I could just not open this thread, but it's CATNIP!
Jeff
Catnip eh! Good analogy . . .

My take on the whole deal boils down to: There's just not an easy answer, and while we may be batting around semantics, there can still be a lot of value in this type of discussion.

MountainSong probably put it well:

I’m with Ironman here. Discussions about which is better realism or abstractionism are just irritating. It begs a person to choose one or the other. *rollseyes*

Every genre has something to offer, fauvism, impressionism, cubism, abstractionism, Dadaism and on and on.
__________________
TheAestheticElevator.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-29-2006, 01:15 PM
anatomist1 anatomist1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 604
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I guess I don't understand the x vs. y element behind the thread either. I am a very skeptical person, and in my book, the kind of knowledge that leads one to be able to make objective-sounding statements doesn't exist in art and is irrelevant. Trying to do so just results in 'I like x' or 'I dislike y' statements with a lot of pretensions and window dressing.

Speaking of such statements, we've got another one now: 'drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist'. More nonsense. I don't draw and I can see. I see contours of objects in minute detail that many don't... probably orders of magnitude more than average. I have never seen anyone - sculptors and other artists included - that has examined any of my more detailed pieces for long enough or with anywhere near the scrutiny required to see what I've really done there.

I can compose photographs, which is a 2d composition skill. I just can't draw, and I've never touched paint, except to paint houses and such. As I said, I'm not really interested. In fact, I'm not really interested in 2d art in general, excepting photographs. I find some of the greats mildly interesting in a sort of academic sense, but the majority of painting and drawing barely even attracts my interest.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-29-2006, 01:24 PM
Thatch Thatch is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dallas,Tx
Posts: 684
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I guess I was drawing before I was sculpting but I do consider that the 1st "Art" that I made was 3D. I found out at a much later date that I had the ability to grasp the concept of what something could become in the future. This came about during my passion for Japanese style gardening which takes years to accomplish. For several reasons I have left that goal incomplete, but that is another story.

In my view of things it is important to view art that is both fresh and that which caused some turning point in the ebb and flow of what is acceptable to the term Art. Granted most turning point art is only that with perspective and in most cases had little to do with what was contemporarily acceptable. This does create a perspective and is usefull as a guide in helping create ideas in your mind's eye on things that that are not yet made. With this perspective and the ability to conceptualize we create. However this ability or talent is just a tool. I personally can not fathom the need to become a slave to any one particular style because I find it limiting. This is partly do to a lack of ability on my part but is mainly do to a lack of interest in repeating myself endlessly.

I do figural and object in it's own right forms. While part of this is due to the fact that I lack the dicipline and motivation to create replicas of the human form to the degree of realism that is require for it to compete in the realm of those who have these merits the truth of the matter is that I very much prefere to just start working and let the form emerge as I go along. While this is not always succesfull because you can't go back after you act when you are working in the removal method I find the challenge of compromise to reach an ever changing goal created by my abilty to conceptualize to be the actual part of the process that I enjoy the most. And face it, if I didn't find some kind of deep personal enjoyment in the process I just would not do it. I do not by any means, because of physical and monetary restraints, get to do anything I want, but at this point in my life I have found the freedom of being in the position of very seldom having to do something that I do not want to do other than some of the things I must do to stay alive.

While this whole debate about the merits, or lack of any particular style or dicipline has been enjoyable and edifying because it gives me some insight in how others think, I really find the whole point moot. The ability to actually create something of value, even if only to yourself, is in my mind only transended by being able to do it to the very best of your abilities.

Thatch
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-29-2006, 03:53 PM
G. Murdoch G. Murdoch is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 360
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

I agree that abstract art is more about design, yet how is a viewer able to judge whether the rendered design is true to the artist's inner vision?

I know that Picasso's work very closely reflects his inner vision, because he proved that he could render what he sees to a high degree of accuracy.

I know that my non-objective work reflects my inner vision to a lesser degree than Picasso. I say this because I have no problem honestly admitting that my visual thinking skills, and my skill with tools, fall short of mastery.

I submit that any artist who claims to be rendering thier inner vision, should be able to prove thier skills by rendering common objects. If an artist cannot draw / paint / sculpt common objects to a degree of accuracy that enables people to clearly recognise what is being rendered, then any claims to "being true to my inner vision" lack credibility.

All of this being said, it is still possible to produce artwork of compelling presence and beauty without masterful skill. It is also possible for highly skilled and technically profficient artists to produce work which lacks presence and beauty.

It is not so much about abstract vs. realism, which one is better. Every artwork exists somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes. It is about quality.

Graham
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-29-2006, 04:24 PM
Tlouis Tlouis is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 389
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hi, you're a pistol ironman. I admire your gutsy no nonsense approach. Guess that's what makes your sculpture so strong.
Can't abide the cerebral gymnastics in some of these threads. Can't wait to read your next missive.
Happy sculpting
Lou
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-29-2006, 05:56 PM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hey Tlouis, I'm a New Yorker, Waddya expect? fuggetaboudit!

Hi Graham, Abstract art IS NOT more about design. Who or what gave you that idea?


You are RIGHT ON about the QUALITY thing though, whether realistic or non-obj, without that sometimes intangible quality, the work falls into mere decoration or worse yet, art that just IS (without expressing something, feeling, concept,etc.)!
Art has to do more than just BE, and it is only by looking at the great art in the museums that one can develop the esthetic response and TASTE to see difference.
Have a great day, you too Louie!
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-29-2006, 07:52 PM
fritchie's Avatar
fritchie fritchie is offline
Sculptor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,456
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironman
Hi, There is a quote in Jason Gillespie's post

"The real conflict, it seems to me arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor "abstract" than "realistic" sculpture is produced and installed for the public."

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE PUBLIC CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD FIGURATIVE WORK" ANY MORE THAN THEY CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD NON-OBJ WORK"?

Jeff
Jason picked that up from my earlier post, and you read it too fast. There's more poor abstract sculpture purchased and installed today than poor figurative simply because there's probably ten times as much abstract purchased by the public. I've named many major abstract sculptors over the months in this forum whose work I find excellent, but few realists for just this reason.

And, since this fact also has come into the discussion, I can't draw worth beans. Like Anatomist1, I basically see in 3D, so all I have to do is transfer that to clay, with constant correction from the model, if I'm using one. For the last several years, I've produced only partial figures from imagination, and I think they are about as realistic as the earlier pieces from models, though of course they are more generalized.

Last edited by fritchie : 08-29-2006 at 08:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-29-2006, 09:31 PM
JasonGillespie's Avatar
JasonGillespie JasonGillespie is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 429
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

ALL ART IS ABOUT DESIGN....ALL ABOUT DESIGN.

As to the nature of drawing as a factor in sculpture...I'd have to fall in with ironman on this one. All the significant sculptors I can think of drew. The honing of perception that drawing provides is reason enough to do it. I can draw 2-D or visualize 3-D in my mind, but my work is strengthened when I do both as opposed to only one. Each must do as they feel led though. As with anything...the proof is in the pudding.

For those that do not enjoy discussing/pondering these questions...a thought.....wouldn't it be better for you if you just didn't post...rather than taking up your time complaining of the fact? No disrespect, but why not ignore the thread if you think it is not worthwhile? That is what I do in other instances.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-29-2006, 10:58 PM
ironman ironman is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silver City, New Mexico
Posts: 1,603
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Hi, man you guys are a tough bunch!
"drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist, more nonsense."
Oh yeah Anatomist1, Well what makes you think that finding every pimple, nuance and crevice on a model makes you an artist?
Finding all those minute details and putting them in your sculpture makes you a illistrator, at best.
That's not what art is about!!!!!!!!!!!!
Art is about expressing yourself, the inner you, that no one gets to see or hear from.
Your feelings, the uniqueness of you!
I've never met an artist who was not interested in other media. That astonishes me!
You need to spend some time in front of some Goya's or some Van Goghs or Munch's or Soutine's.
Have a great day,
Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-30-2006, 12:04 AM
anatomist1 anatomist1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 604
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

You need to learn to make "I" statements, Jeff. The problem here seems to be that you essentially think you are god and any number of your opinions are objective facts. Here I, a lowly mortal, have dared to provide a couterexample to one of your assertions, and you resort right to insinuating that I'm ignorant and not an artist.

I'm not sure if the chain of reasoning from before is of any importance at this point, but the reason I brought up detail and accuracy is that I see it and can render it, in multiple media. It appeared you were asserting that this was somehow not technically possible without drawing first. Now I see you are talking about 'seeing' in some more esoteric way.

Given how vaguely you've defined it so far, I don't see how I can defend whether I'm an artist or can 'see' in this way. Maybe not. I probably don't care. I never refer to myself as 'an artist' because almost every time I've ever heard anyone make a point of doing so, it was in the context of being a pretentious ass.

As far as your definition of an artist goes, I'm getting the distinct impression it has a lot to do with following rules, doing what you are supposed to, doing what everyone else does, and imitating the behavior of other people who you think are 'great'. If so, I doubt I'll ever qualify.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-30-2006, 12:11 AM
JasonGillespie's Avatar
JasonGillespie JasonGillespie is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 429
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Quote:
I've never met an artist who was not interested in other media. That astonishes me!
You need to spend some time in front of some Goya's or some Van Goghs or Munch's or Soutine's.
Ironman,

Your point is a good one. Experience in/knowledge of various mediums only enhances your overall studio practice. Art history and other artists' work (as you point out) are integral to being well rounded...whether you're abstract or realistic. As with anything else, we ultimately focus on those things we are particularly drawn to, but I have found only good coming from expanding my knowledge/experience base.

Last edited by JasonGillespie : 08-30-2006 at 12:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-30-2006, 12:14 AM
obseq's Avatar
obseq obseq is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Ironman, and everyone else,

Feel free to dissect anyone's ideas or thoughts into smithereens,
but please keep the comments non-personal.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:15 AM
anatomist1 anatomist1 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 604
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Appparently no one here has ever heard of folk art or outsider art.

Incidentally, I have seen plenty of paintings and drawings. I know a little about the main trends in western and some eastern art history. I have taken at least 12 credits of art history classes, more if you count aesthetics courses in the philosophy department. What I said is that I generally don't find paintings and drawings very interesting.

I also don't think much of the above, or any more of it, has been or would be particularly useful to my work. My inspirations are mostly nature and science, particularly archeaology, biology, anatomy, and especially old-school scientific ideas and medical practices now deemed outdated or crazy.

While we're at it, I also don't care much about most other people's sculpture either, including the "greats". Whether or not someone is considered great means beans to me. I'll decide for myself whether I like something or have any interest in it, without letting reputation enter into it.

Contrary to what is being peddled so dogmatically here, I think paying too much attention to what other people have done and having any a priori reverence for other artists is a bad idea... at least for me. Not only do I disdain the kind of conformism being pushed in principle, I think it increases the chances one will do something derivative, uninteresting, or part of a fad. For me art is a realm of freedom and independence.

Last edited by anatomist1 : 08-30-2006 at 02:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-30-2006, 01:57 AM
MountainSong's Avatar
MountainSong MountainSong is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seoul South Korea
Posts: 363
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

For what its worth I don’t draw either, but did 20 years ago when learning and exploring realism, and feel that it jumped the curve up for me in realism to be honest.
Now I do not draw at all, don’t even have a sketch pad. I go straight to the canvas or metal and begin creating because preplanning a piece plans out the creativity and spontaneity which drops the energy levels. (important in non-objective art, though not as much in realism)

As an artist I’m confident enough to make a piece work whether it started with a specific idea or not. If I run into problems mid-stream the piece gets photographed and put it into photoshop and any problems it may have developed are worked out there. This is a very effective approach with non-objective art and many artists I know do it regularly and even critique work that way over the net.

At this stage of the game - expanding my artistic understanding of art history is critical to being able to cross over the line from doing what has been done to doing that which is utterly unique and fresh.
Last week I spent hours with 300 Picasso’s (a retrospective) and yesterday with 27 Rothko’s (a retrospective) and Nam June Paik (an important Korean Avante Garde sculpture who had to make it in New York before he was accepted in his homeland). Four years ago I spent 3 months in 11 countries of Europe touring all the great master artists, sculptors and architectural works.
What was learned, saw, felt and absorbed first hand can not be expressed effectively in words but that knowledge will be expressed in art, becoming multi lingual in art is anything but a hindrance. The more you know the more you are empowered to break free and speak uniquely with a fresh voice.

Anatomist1, Folk, Outsider, art naive, primitive et all - Yes. Of course.
__________________
Fetchplex (fech' pleks) - n. State of momentary confusion in a dog whose owner has faked throwing the ball and palmed it behind his back.

Last edited by MountainSong : 08-30-2006 at 02:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-30-2006, 02:11 AM
MountainSong's Avatar
MountainSong MountainSong is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seoul South Korea
Posts: 363
Re: Abstract Art vs Realism

Perhaps I should add, that art is a visual language, therefore the more languages we understand the more we are put into a position to develop our own unique language. That’s why retrospectives are so interesting. It seems like it takes most artists 20-25 years to learn to speak in their own voice, up to that point it is exploring the arts through others languages who have gone before. Few artists have ever been prodigy’s who popped out Year Two with anything interesting to say, also one must live long enough to have something interesting to say and have developed the tools and nuances to say it when the time comes.
Through time, studying and doing we learn to speak the visual language with finite articulation and eloquence.
__________________
Fetchplex (fech' pleks) - n. State of momentary confusion in a dog whose owner has faked throwing the ball and palmed it behind his back.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert