![32684-banner-clayton-on-art-jackson-pollack-book[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9mnErpF.jpg "32684-banner-clayton-on-art-jackson-pollack-book[1].jpg")
Can Abstract artists even draw?
![cover4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/W5URbQ9.jpg "cover4[1].jpg")
>>2344146
Is hyper realism even art?
>>2344146
Draw realistically? Most can't, but that's not the point of their work or relevant to them at all.
>>2344146
they can draw better than you tho
Drawing's not the only kind of art.
>>2344146
That's not abstract art, it's non-representational art. Abstraction is the alteration of real life subject matter, usually by omitting or exaggerating features and details of the subject. The art shown in the OP image isn't based on any particular real object, meaning it's not meant to represent concrete objects and serve as an illustration, therefore it actually falls under the category of non-representational art.
>>2344181
It is abstract, Abstract is non-figurative, Its a thing that works on degrees, i.e Picasso's art was abstracted, but this Pollock is totally abstract.
>>2344215
Incorrect. Picasso's work is considered abstract because the subject matter was still based on recognizable subjects, such as people, animals, and household objects. The type of art shown here is not meant to represent any recognizable subject matter, which is why it's called non-representational art. Calling this category of art abstract art is a common misnomer, much like referring to dissociative identity disorder as schizophrenia.
>>2344146
Check out Gerhard Richter. Left is one of his abstract works and right is one of his portraits.
>>2344146
yes, I can.
>>2344155
no, it is a technical skill
>>2344146
>Can Abstract artists even draw?
no, they wouldn't do abstract art otherwise you dingus
>>2344546
Why do people do this?
>>2344789
Abstract painting is 10000000x harder than naturalism. People who do this want to challenge themselves.
>>2344837
>>2344221
Abstract in terms of painting is the equivalent to nonobjective. You're taking a word in its most literal sense and out of the context of the art world.
>>2344858
It's bizarre that you can't grasp the idea that abstract painting is difficult, have you ever drawn a single line in your life?
>>2344875
>have you ever drawn a single line in your life?
Yes, and I don't call it abstract art.
>>2344546
im guessing he can only photocopy.
>>2345147
not that anon
but the reason why other forms of art, away from natural representation, take more effort is because a lot more thinking is involved. It's like the difference between annotating and writing poetry.
When you annotate, you basically summarize the facts. You re-give what is already given, except you change it into a more shortened form. Drawing realisticlly is the same, you're just drawing what you see in a realistic stylization
Writing poetry takes imagination and cleverness. With poetry youre doing more than representing facts. So doing something like abstract painting youre doing more than naturalism. Poetry, good quality poetry, takes effort, more effort than writing say a book report (which what realistic drawing is more like)
>>2345147
art is like anything else.
in sport, feats are ranked by difficulty
there are easy targets to hit and hard targets to hit. It is generally agreed upon that accomplishing a difficult feat merits respect.
abstract painting is the same. there is both low-hanging and treetop fruit.
Not all abstract painting attempts to convey emotion, or mood, but some do, and among those that do there are easy feats and difficult feats. Some feelings are more subtle or difficult than others. Some feelings are presented by the artist in an especially subtle or clever way. It's hard to even talk about this stuff with art though, because people do so many different things with art. It's not like sport where there's objective goals and rankings.
>>2345208
>but the reason why other forms of art, away from natural representation, take more effort is because a lot more thinking is involved. It's like the difference between annotating and writing poetry.
Oh fuck off retard.
>>2344159
Isn't it the norm that you should first be competent in classical drawing and painting, before even trying abstract art?
>>2345208
kek what a pretentious asshat
>>2345392
No. That just happened to be the case for early abstract artists in history, because they were trained in a world in which abstract art did not yet exist.
Some could draw very well, other not as much (Pollock wasn't much of a realist, but his mature work was fully nonrepresentational, so why would he need to be?)
pic related, early work by Willem de Kooning
>>2345162
how is this portrait photocopy ? have you even seen the colors, lighting, or the contours of the silhouette? there is some stylization going on
>>2345482
i guess he can only stylize from photocopies?
>>2345472
>That just happened to be the case for early abstract artists in history, because they were trained in a world in which abstract art did not yet exist.
thats an interesting point
>>2345482
>there is some stylization going on
You should word this as >there is hardly any stylization going on, to be more precise.
>>2345472
>his mature work was fully nonrepresentational, so why would he need to be?
Why choose painting as a medium then? Is it because it's easy to just throw a bunch of paint around and call it art?
>>2345243
>>2345408
If you read your art history, you'd remember during the 15th century painting was argued to be like poetry so as to lift the status of artists with those with liberal arts education. (That's how geometry and music become dominant in making paintings) Before painters were considered like artisans and thier work was deemed as what we would think today as craft or ornamentation. The analogy is old it's just that naive kids are to full of themselves to learn about it.
>>2344861
The context the word has been given in the art world is incorrect. People have come to incorrectly associate the word abstract with non-representational, most likely because extremely abstracted works can very much resemble non representational art when the forms are so abstractly represented that they're near unrecognizeable. However, the word abstract has a defined meaning, and being based on something real or concrete is simply built into the meaning of the word. All I'm asking is that you use the correct label for the type of art that you're discussing, and this is not abstract art, it's non-representational art. Using the correct name for it negates the need for this discussion though, because drafting ability is negligible in a category where the art doesn't need to convey any real subjects.
>>2345500
Yeah, it's real poetic alright
>>2344146
in 2016, what is the point of drawing "things" and "objects"?
>>2345607
In CURRENT YEAR, what is the point of painting "Pollock retard shit #6,000,000" and "retarded installation bullshit that should have started and ended with Duchamp".
Fuck it, I'll take the bait.
Abstract shit is hard, because you have a ton less to work with. Lets take this still life. With a realist/stylized scene, when you can create the general forms and colours as seen and the final interpretation will be pretty easily recognizable as an apple. Making that apple look real or stylizing it well is a matter of technique, but once it's in the ballpark of looking like an apple, the mind carries it away to look like an apple.
>http://images.pcworld.com/news/graphics/173131-apple-woolworths-logo_original.jpg
With an abstract this is a bit harder. Lets start with the representational / highly stylized apple on the right, even though this is /gd/ material. Why is this bunch of forms bringing us to an apple and not to an Arbys curly fry? The colour palette is one we see primarily in regard to fruits, the shape is semi similar to a apple and there is even a negative space for a core. This could be a green tomato, but it evokes the vibes of a green apple. If you had never seen a green apple, you would not make this jump. The mind lets the abstract be appreciated as more then images. However there is much less play here to trigger this evocation of feeling, the colours must be correct to reality, the shapes semi-coherent.
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UmR76h0H6dg/VoL-ghLMywI/AAAAAAAAHk8/PnMhgjtxyT8/s1600/20151216_141356.jpg
Alright full abstract mode. Tape resists and colour choice with flat planes. This abstract does not evoke feelings of a apple for me, the navy is too detracting. But the texture does give a crunch to the painting. Now with fucking apples on the brain, some of those central forms look leaf-esque. With a modified colour palette this could bring forth the experience of eating an apple. But the colours must be dead on, the simplified forms precisely placed and a decent understanding of what triggers the experience.
Now I have not even touched on the contrasts of rhythm, shape, form, texture, etc.
Easy?
>>2344155
eh. if they can make the original photo more interesting by either messing with the lighting or something.
>>2345941
Very helpful Anon as well as your other posts ITT. Thanks, I feel that I understand the issue a bit better now.
Btw, do you have some good resources about abstract(ed) art?
>>2345219
This guy's got it.
It's a little shocking to find that 4chan's art board doesn't understand/appreciate abstract art, when /lit/ is nothing but absurdism and /mu/ is avant garde. /fa/ too. Sometimes this board is odd to me. On the same note, /ck/ is half and half world class cuisine and kraft singles. Odd world.
>>2345523
In the "art world"
abstraction must derive from an original point based in reality/observation
non-representational work lacks a referent
(this division is complicated by the concept that any painting is a representation of another phenomenon; for example pollock's painting here being a collection of marks representative of gestures his body made as it moved around the canvas)
>>2345979
It's not to say that non-representational art doesn't represent anything at all, just that the art as presented is not meant to represent, in this case the word represent meaning to visually convey the forms of physical objects. In this way we can separate the art into the categories of illustrative or expressive. Abstract art can be expressive, but non-representational art cannot be illustrative, since to illustrate a subject would be to represent it, which is mutually exclusive to non-representationalism. So while non-representational art can indeed still "represent" the motions of the artist or the artist's feelings or some other vague concept, it is not art that acts to represent as a symbol or illustration of tangible subject matter. This is the distinction between abstract art and non-representational art.
>>2345941
Right, so it's inferior art.
>>2345219
>>2345978
It's pretty simple why modern and abstract art don't work.
It's hard to appreciate art if you don't have respect for the artist, and I mean on the most basic of form, without even knowing their name and status.
When you take hyper realism (which is ridiculed in this thread for being a purely technical skill) and abstract (which is purely emotive, because if they aren't, as you argued, then they lose any substance), then classical art the the soft spot between the two, various genres closing in on the both sides of the spectrum.
When you take a crowd of people to a Modern art museum, the top three scenarios that happen are:
> "What is this?"
> Ridiculing the pretentious title of the art piece
> Different variations of the "Even I could do this, even my kid could do this, even my retarded cousin could do this"
Any deeper meaning, any artist's intention is lost within the severe lack of respect.
Take the same group of people to the classical art gallery/museum and their reactions are completely different.
>>2345941
>Everything you said about the full abstract painting
No, no, no, absolutely not, and it's hideous to look at.
>>2346243
There was a kid doing these abstract painting and selling them for a shit ton but then people found out the fathers helping her. The buyers got refunded
>>2346243
>Take the same group of people to the classical art gallery/museum and their reactions are completely different.
>my feet hurt
>why does everyone look upset
>their feet must hurt too
>i know that feel
>they want 2b@ home playing gaems 2
>wtf that aint no flute bitch
>dis bitch think she jimi hendrix wit dat gay ass horn
>>2345482
>>2345486
>>2345495
y'all realize a good portion of his early career was dedicated to the effects of photocopy machines, right?
>>2346377
I just googled an image and sorted to green for making a point. It's some shoddy grade school art project.
>>2345162
>le call photocopy meme
>>2345941
Thanks for intelligent response anon, very helpful
looking at history you can see that there was a feud between traiditonalists and people who wanted to push the limit a bit more forwards
uneducated people mistake neoclassics with romanticists, even impressionists
what happened was that the new movement always collided, but after a time it became part and changed the art definition. if neoclassics saw Ingres' Odalisque's back they'd go apeshit
as time went on the limits went even further away, romanticists went pushed further than Ingres with the treatment of atmosphere disregarding perspective and proportions. impressionists changing the way paintings were made, not using black at all, pointillism or outright shapes. even a pre-impressionist like manet with his lunch in the park was out of this world for everyone else. I could keep naming examples but you can see the point, looking backwards it may seem all the same, but it's not
after impressionists -even some of them like turner- went even crazier and away from anything figurative, people kept doing their own studies on how to break out from this in their own way, like cezanne, van gogh, kandinsky, kirchner, and so on
the tendency has always been the same and you could argue that non-charlatans are still connected to reality by a string
my personal opinion is that impressionists were the ones who finally solved the issue in a pictoric way, vanguardists are pushing for what's left
>>2347158
sorry, vanguardists kept pushing for what's left, or asking if there's anything left. vanguards are over, we're the leftovers of all this
>>2345978
I know, right? Disappointing for me that the art board is so fully of stuffy, juvenile technician wanna-bes. A lot of the stuff I really love is weird contemporary/conceptual stuff.
>>2345941
>Easy?
Yes. You're randomly adding effects to something that is realistic. That's all you're doing. There's nothing difficult about it. It's not clever, it's not enlightening, it's just fucking random.
