Why Artists May Go Abstract
- Mandy Halford
- Mar 14, 2018
- 6 min read
Confusion, preference, opinions. These are things that come to mind when I think about conversations I've had about abstract art. It seems one of those styles that is quickly hated or quickly admired. Which has always made me wonder: what specific painting is this person who finds abstract art distasteful remembering? Are those quick to enjoy abstract art able to tell the difference between good abstract art and the bad? I've noticed that those who are quick to write off the style will appreciate the artist only if they discover the abstract artist also possess the ability to create realist art. I think this discovery clears up a few things that cause their hesitancy with the style. It shows this person the artist is not a "fraud". In their mind they see realist art as a skill they do not posses or one they know is hard to master, and with no knowledge about the creator of an abstract piece, for all they know a child could have created it. That maybe abstract art is made by literal "con-artists" if you will, and these viewers fear that deception. An element of that misconception is the idea that abstract art is created by someone who has not put a lot of effort into the piece or never attempted to learn traditional style painting. Or did attempt realist art but lacked any ability to master it, putting them on the same skill level as the viewer. All of these opinions or, again, misconceptions make these viewers more curious as to why someone with the ability to draw well observationally would turn to abstract art.
To understand why an artist would switch to making abstract art I think one must firstly try to appreciate a few aspects of the style. The tricky thing is that abstract art is so broad and often any type of nonrepresentational art or expressionist piece of work is lumped into the same category. For the point of getting technical about the term, to abstract something would first require a recognizable image to simplify. Full abstraction leaves no resemblance to a visual scene or image and becomes more about the design, colors, medium, or technique. I think it is fair to say that not all abstract works fit inside this definition of simplifying and sometimes I feel that word alone discredits the intention. I believe some artists hone in on an aspect of an image they find beautiful or fascinating. So rather than saying that abstraction makes an imagine more simple, I would describe it as naturally exaggerating or emphasizing elements they find attractive.
Once an artist emphasizes one element, another begs for focus, leading to a push and pull of color and design across the surface, moving the viewers eyes around with it. When starting the process to create a realist painting, the piece always begins in a state of abstraction. The mapping in of elements, values, and structures in the start of a new painting is always very exciting; ones eyes are discovering and trying to make sense of what they see. (Some describe this as "fishing".) There are a lot of steps in traditional oil painting, a long process of layering. Once one has mastered the art of rendering what they see correctly and then mastered the steps of this traditional style of painting, it's easy to see the process losing it’s joy or mystery. When never taking any artistic leverage or employing one’s own interpretation of, say, color for example, one can begin to feel like a robot reproducing life onto a 2D surface. A human paint by numbers with self created guidelines. With the start of the painting being the stage that still holds a sense of excitement, I could see why an artist might reject the tedium of the traditional process and instead finish the piece within the "more expressive" realm of abstraction.
“Painting had begun to lose its mystery and completing a piece felt like a long series of boring, linear steps to perform. My painting practice began to feel like typing instead of writing but I had not yet developed skills besides painting “accurately.” You could say I was stuck without knowing it. Everything seemed to be going so well in terms of my career – I got a lot of kudos and made a lot of sales, but I wasn’t feeling very inspired anymore." -Tania Dibbs
As for "traditional talent" being a necessary benchmark for abstract talent...I disagree. The fact is that not everyone can draw what they see, but everyone is capable of making meaningful marks on paper. So why do some marks have more meaning than others? Say there are two paintings consisting of just a few red marks, one made by an artist, the other by "some guy". One is stemmed from a love of color creation, possibly the result of hundreds of more complicated paintings that led to this painting of minimal streaks. Many thoughts of life, meaning of art, design, color--all a part of the process of creating art. It's the difference between poetry and a sentence, or the difference between a real Van Gogh and a forged production of one. Genuine art comes simply from genuine inspiration. A "real" work of art holds the artist's thoughts on life, it holds their emotions or observations from the single moment in time they created it. If a realist painter can turn to finding beauty in specific elements and abstracting them, why couldn't anyone else start off being attracted to such elements in the first place, regardless of prior training? Sure, any training or education is always a valuable tool, but anyone can be inspired to abstract.
Of course, not all art has to have a "deeper meaning", but some artists feel an immense amount of pressure for their artwork to contain or portray layers of thought. They feel if it lacks a clever subject then it is not “real” art, or at least not “great” art, and that it is a reflection of their character, that they have nothing to say and are therefore not a “real” artist. Lets say one paints a picture of a car. The audience will see this image, immediately recognize it as a car, and probably move on. Perhaps artists create meanings in hopes to engage the audience for longer. When an artist creates an image and puts their name on it, it can feel like it represents them as an individual so it begs the question, who are they? Is this how I want to represent myself? So by freeing ones self from subject matter, and escaping the literal image, one can now get back to their original love of painting.
“But for a painter's purposes, true abstraction is not an alternative to, but a path toward, reality's core. In the sense in which I use the word, abstraction in painting means turning disparate elements into a coherent design, finding color and value themes that unify, and making the brushstrokes have a beauty independent of description.” -Gregg Kreutz
This idea of escaping or freeing oneself from mostly a self created pressure makes me wonder if abstract art is more for artists than viewers. Is it just an artists attempt to reclaim their creativity and love of the action of art making? Can one appreciate abstract art without appreciating and knowing what it feels like to actually make art? I think it happens all the time. I believe there's at least one abstract painting out there for everyone. Whether they ever see it or not. And when they do see it, perhaps they cannot put to words why they enjoy it, but for the audience and the artist I think abstract art is a chance for the viewer to step into a simpler reality with no forced ideas and to just appreciate aspects of color or design--to see and enjoy rather than understand.
“That mysterious factor of surrender, the creative surprise that releases us and opens us up, spontaneously allows something to arise. If we are transparent, with nothing to hide, the gap between language and Being disappears. Then the muse can speak.” - Stephen Nachmanovitch
(To see some great abstract art I recommend looking up the artist Cecily Brown, one of my all time favorite painters. Link below if interested)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoted in article:
Gregg Kreutz from his article "The abstract qualities in realist paintings"
Tania Dibbs “Moving from realism to abstraction”
Stephen Nachmanovitch, from his book "Free Play. Improvisation in Life and Art"
תגובות