Let's talk non-objective

[StevenW]

I'll just start.. I'm getting tired of work that has "meaning" and by that I mean stuff I've made that has some kind of direct referential connection to something, be it a memory or event or person as in figuration.. I want to make a completely non-objective work, but I'm stumped. Evrything that comes to mind has a connection to something and I want to disconnect and just feel it through..

make any sense?

I'd love to see and talk about some of your favorite non-objective work, Portoro's thread came close, but there has to be more..

Here's my last little pre-viz I did, but i'm not sure I even want shape.. That's how non-objective I'm aiming for.. It's truly baffling to me, so simple and yet so complex..

[rderr.com]

Non-objective--no object, zero, nothing, nirvana is an Indian invention. Pictorially I know of no art as full. A Tanka about nothing is full of figures and action and references and they have been at it for 5,000 years. Maybe in another five,000.

I like what you have presented but there is still form, color, reference-object and beauty.

Robert

[StevenW]

So do you suppose then that sculpture is completely "innoculated" from the non-objective? Can we sculpt a blackness, a nothingness for instance?I suppose at some level we have to let something in, so I'll let in color and light and form, but want them to be as far away from the "applicable" as I can manage..

I'll look up Tanka's and such.. keep me out of trouble for awhile anyway.

[rderr.com]

<<...Can we sculpt a blackness, a nothingness ...>>Steven,

I've yet to do that <<...blackness...>> as a piece of sculpture. But I have been inside a black hole and taken a photo of what it looks like looking out.

Robert

PS, Giotto, This is one for you--the posting time of the photo is 12:21--I HAVE FOR YEARS INSISTED THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE IT IS ALWAYS 12:21. Is this the quantum therory's answer of that place?

rd

[LimeCutter]

This is a natural approach to art for me. Some people think it is cold and I am sure that the coldness comes form not being able to associate the object very easily with some sort of tangible meaningful object that they can relate to. (i.e. it looks like a...... to me)

The coldness or distance can often be mistaken for lack of artistic integrity. Unfortunately a lot of people buy into the romantic notion of art and artist, and when they cannot experience what thay believe to be the artist (expressed within the art - "oh it's got real emotion and passion"), they don't want to have it.

Just a thought

[Portoro]

It may be worth looking up how we came to have the term 'non-objective'. But I've always taken it at face value - that is, work that does not refer directly to an object. That in itself is not so difficult (attached a piece of mine that I would call non-objective, and called 'Strictly Linear' because that's what it's about - line and mass - not any object). But I think Steven is searching for something else here - if you don't want shape, then no art... By the way, I like the 'pre-viz'(?): looks really good. Very theatrical.

Oh, here's a piece by Limecutter I love - http://www.daniellingham.co.uk/gallery.html#16 - and there are some visual parallels with Desertrock's work, if you look through his stuff - both non-objective artists, I'd say. Both into things that are not object-related, although, having said that, they both make great objects! Imagine what these works add to a space, and you'll see why you can't sculpt a nothingness.

[grommet]

Steven, can ya doodle?

I like Kurt Schwitters stuff.

[StevenW]

Cantab, lovely piece and I love Dan's and Mark's work too,.. I guess though that I am even thinking about the possibility of trying to escape that. The heavy reliance on shape or form typically create's something that is highly "decorative" and I mean that in a sincere way and also with the highest sense of the word as opposed to something trashy and the "prettiness" of form is tempting, but I want to know if there are other avenues that perhaps we are not considering?

Can light and color for instance compete with form in rock or metal? That was the aim of my pre-visualization (just a 3d model) and although I guess it is theatrical, to me it's allure is not in shapes, rectalinear and spherical, but rather in light and composition and color.

I must go deeper into the well and find out.

[tonofelephant]

Steven,

If you lose the shape, lose the references, and the time element; you are left with either "thought experiments", performance art (one time show only), or "air drawing" (am thinking of the IBM commercials that had people drawing with laser pointers outside).

I had always thought that "non-objective art" was an object representing a non-objective thing like an idea, an emotion or a thought without dragging in a recognizable figure or form. The basis behind the non-objective art was to make tangible something that was intangible, hopefully without the baggage of the reference to a real object.

To me it is hard to get past art as representing something, since as in sculptures case it has a form, takes up space, and definitely occupies a defined time period (when a sculpture is placed somewhere it is there for a defined time and takes up a defined space).

Maybe I am to literal. But definitely getting dizzy from the semantics.

Carl

[StevenW]

Ya I'm dizzy too, it's boggling to me and it seems the flatty people have it easier because they can just make brush strokes and single colors on a square. Not fair to us, but i'm hungry for some "what the hell is that"? If you know what I mean.

Thanks for the great comments, please keep them coming.

[grommet]

here's some WTF. stuff that happens cuz somebody bought too much beer & pretzels & forgot to pick up the artists from ballet...
http://www.studioarnequinze.tv/#/en/...nia-nevada-us/

[StevenW]

Great stuff Grommet,

Here's another, flatty-land, but it seems to me they have it so much simpler than we do..

http://www.stanberning.com/

Like this work and:

www.kathleenwaterloo.com

Anutha.. I'm wondering if I can do that in rock.

[evaldart]

It should not be the goal of the abstractionist to present "nothing". That is impossible, futile, unchallenging, misdirected and phoney-baloney. Non-objective, non representational, abstract...just more tired and failing little terminologies dreamed-up to identify the Art that doesnt look like figuration or landscape. Fact is, after a hundred years of non-objective art, too much of THAT stuff too is plenty recognizable (by its motives and obvious "references"). More on the heap.

So what is the goal of our forward-thinking, able-bodied, separated and solitary manipulator of matter? Enabling. Enabling is permissive...open to anything. And while the chain of artifacts that might arrive by the actions of our pure abstractionist could APPEAR to be similar to each other; dont be fooled. If said non-objectifier is having his/her way, great personal gains can be made by a run of pieces that seem to be only variations on a theme. This is because an "enabling" approach encounters different ways to interact, growing the ego by adding methodology, technique, choreography, by expanding options and by advantaging physical opportunities.

When Malevich paints a black square...please dont believe its got anything to do with Russian sociopolitical conditions of the day. No, it only has to do with an artist enjoying some detachment. And all the good ones did the same, its nothing modern. Every good piece of art ever made was about the "enabling". It was never about the virgin mary, the ballet dancers or Napoleon. Because if it really WAS about Napoleon, no matter how well-handed, it didnt make it to Art. It was just somebody's "job".

[cheesepaws]

Before Evaldart's post fell into his usual tirade against the ineffectiveness of language and the belittling of "scribblers" he had some good points that I agree with. I've teased them out a bit below.

Originally Posted by evaldart

It should not be the goal of the abstractionist to present "nothing". That is impossible, futile, unchallenging, misdirected and phoney-baloney. Non-objective, non representational, abstract...just more tired and failing little terminologies dreamed-up to identify the Art that doesnt look like figuration or landscape. Fact is, after a hundred years of non-objective art, too much of THAT stuff too is plenty recognizable (by its motives and obvious "references"). More on the heap.

1) Non-objective art is still just a level of abstraction and does not inherently imply the goal of removing all references to subject - just obvious or easily recognizable ones.

2) Because the notion is "of an era" and connected quite heavily with an academic/critical/theoretical art history, one (today) cannot call a work non-objective without drawing connections and comparisons to the tenets Modernism or specific Modernist works. That alone is a pretty powerful "referent" in itself.

StevenW - the "problem" you have set out for yourself is awesome. Highly conceptual. Can you be any more specific about what you want a viewer to experience in your imagined "WTF" work?

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by StevenW

So do you suppose then that sculpture is completely "innoculated" from the non-objective? Can we sculpt a blackness, a nothingness for instance?I suppose at some level we have to let something in, so I'll let in color and light and form, but want them to be as far away from the "applicable" as I can manage..

Sounds a bit like James Turrells light stuff.

[grommet]

E- language, again the downfall with its enabling and ego growing factory.

dude's in a rut. get out of the house & do something different.

[StevenW]

Well sure Matt, but maybe you're cutting off the head of the hydra before we get a chance to feed the damn thing. I've always wanted a pet hydra..

But all of your (every-one's) posts are helping me identify what it is I'm really trying to corner and even my own links to the two painters makes me wonder if what I'm trying to ascertain has more to do with decor than nothingness.

Nothingness isn't my goal per-se, but rather a disattachment from anything referential combined with some elements that add up to art, without being dominated by them or being "theatrical" either. It's really a bitch when you stop and think about it even though it's been done for 100 years or more. Yes, we should enable but enable rigorously and not with reckless abandon. I tried knocking out a flatty tonight and scrubbed it, and washed the paint down the sink,..that's how pissed off I am.

[grommet]

so how about perpendicular planes, of varied hues, larger than life, perhaps with openings between them... artificial or natural light emenating from various points. Oh wait, that's a house... just make it without a door and make the furniture really uncomfortable.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

StevenW - the "problem" you have set out for yourself is awesome. Highly conceptual. Can you be any more specific about what you want a viewer to experience in your imagined "WTF" work?

Nice to see you again Cheese,

okay, I'll give it a shot.. Maybe starting by what I am not looking for. I am not looking for an overly powerful/dominant or suggested form. I am not looking for anything that could be tied to a toaster or pac man. I want elegant and simple and not theatrical. I want color and light and texture, but not corn rows or swimming pools. Old Jeff's use of the word "decorative" has been bothering me for many months in the back of my mind and I try to envision it and hit a wall with everything I see, even the "nicest" works by our good friends here have some measure of "decor" and I am trying to evade it and can't really do it without resorting to something from, erm, let's see here.. How about the black monolith in space odyssey 2001? Now that was powerful without being anything more than a rectangle, but perhaps a bit too on the plain side and plain old boring side if you take the theatrics away.. Portoro has a great example and Dan's work and Mark's is teriffic.. Maybe I'm thinking assembly and comp more than object and form.. Not really sure what I see yet, thanks for asking..

[evaldart]

I'll liken my rut to a trench, G,...trenches, in fact. Places from where I can hope to strike against ALL the nemesi. Somewhat protected, very filthy, thoughts ever interupted by explosions, me constantly heaving things out (and back out)...proof that its war everywhere all the time; not just when and where the books and newspapers say it is.
And there are bigger moments when the smell of death cannot obscure the view of a vast and expansive "everything" that takes the obvious shape of a passing non-objectivity. So despite the bombs, a REAL task emerges, its not one that has anything to do with the silliness of surviving. So now I'll finally get to reap the rewards of an effort; and temorarily armored against the relentless pinprickings of human activity, I'll DO that very thing which they cannot imagine or ever give a damn about.
Then its back into the trench...rut-ridden again, scrapping for change, dodging bullets and generally enduring a consant state of slow rotting. Ho hum, go through the motions, fight for position, the Art will come again.

[Portoro]

Steven – one of my favourite artists for a long time has been Antoni Tapies. He’s a painter (Spanish), but has worked in heavy impasto to create painting-reliefs. His work does what you seem to wish – he breaks up the easier patterns of form and line, and seeks the possibilities in the disintegration of these things. Here, everything is quite fluid, hard to pin down. He also loves the material he works with, and it may be that you could find some of that 'nothingness' you seek in the character of the material you work with, if you forefront it, as many artists do. Tapies sometimes uses symbol (the cross, for instance, and writes on the canvases too), but his work dismisses prettiness, formal and techical elegance and all that. Would relief work interest you? (Attached: Tapies).

Grommet may also be pointing to an interesting route – Schwitters’ mixed media collages/reliefs may offer a vehicle for your pre-viz of post 1.
I also have a great love of the effects that can be produced by rusted steel/iron. If built into a structure of some kind, you may also be building in what you are seeking to achieve. That can suggest ‘nothingness’ (which is all you can do with such a subject). Would EFFECTS help, rather than abandoning form?

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by Portoro

Here, everything is quite fluid, hard to pin down. He also loves the material he works with, and it may be that you could find some of that 'nothingness' you seek in the character of the material you work with, if you forefront it, as many artists do. Tapies sometimes uses symbol (the cross, for instance, and writes on the canvases too), but his work dismisses prettiness, formal and techical elegance and all that. Would relief work interest you? .... Would EFFECTS help, rather than abandoning form?

Well that's quite good and I can see why you like him. "Effects" however beg the theatrical you intuitively pointed out. The word deliberation struck me last night like an arrow before I fell asleep and maybe if I cling to this notion I can find what I'm after. Pure deliberation wrapped in stone.. I'll start today, chisel strikes only, no machines, no sanding, satisfying yet unpromoted form, texture, light and color sharing as much of the experience as shape. It's my last block of Yule.. I'll post the result here when it's done.

[GlennT]

I think that if you go out in the backyard and find a rock, almost any ol' rock, that has been untouched by human hands, that the pressures of nature has sculpted, you will be looking at what you are describing.

[StevenW]

Now Glenn, that is not very optimistic of you.. There is a vast difference between raw and deliberate.

[Aaron Schroeder]

Steven, you're a musician, how about sculpting up a piece inspired by an auditory composition. That would give you structure and the non-objective.