| Question Home |
Position:Home>Visual Arts> Abstract painters can't do realism?Question: Abstract painters can't do realism!? I've known some self-described "artists" who paint in a non-representational style!. The problem is that it seems like they can't do realism at all (yes, I've seen their efforts) so they've had to fall back on abstractions!. Whatever happened to the Picassos of this world who were proficient in realism, and then decided to break the conventions of art and go into abstraction!?!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: It is true that there are many artists today who start out painting or drawing in abstract form but fail to ever achieve any level of proficiency in Realism!. Anybody who says that realism is overrated fails to understand the expertise that one must have to be a master in realism or abstraction!. If you take for example Willem de Kooning, one of the leaders of the First Generation Abstract Expressionist Movement, his extremely early works display an incredible proficiency in Realism!. The same goes for of course Picasso and also Rothko in addition most of the greatest Abstract Expressionists both first and second generation!. Realism provides the foundation for mastery which then allows for a true master to be able to expand in whatever direction he or she might choose artistically!. There are then contemporary artists such as Ian Hornak [b!.1944-d!.2002] who demonstrated tremendous proficiency in both Abstract and Realist art from an extremely young age but chose to follow Realism but take it to the level of what could at times be considered abstract with his multiple exposure series & monochromatic erotic series!. His work can be viewed at www!.ianhornak!.com Essentially history demonstrates that there is little room for variation!. A true artistic master must be able to cross the proverbial board in art before they able to be absolute abstract masters!. One of the exceptions to this is Jackson Pollock who never demonstrated a great proficiency in Realism though he studied under Thomas Hart Benton [where most of his earliest work was produced], although he would ultimately take Abstraction to the outermost limit as would Cy Twombly!. It could be argued that Pollock more or less through experimentation stumbled onto a good thing with his drip paintings at a time [mid to late 1940's] when he was doing his best but still in a sense struggling to compete with the likes of Willem de Kooning, Alfonso Ossorio, Richard Dart, etc!.!.!. Much of problem today can probably be attributed to one of two things: 1!. an individual who looks through a series of books on Abstract Art and says introspectively "I can do that!" The problem that arises here is that when they do start to paint, they are either creating near duplications of what has already been done or variations of such!. 2!. The Art Departments of many colleges and universities have an overwhelming tendency to encourage students to "loosen up" far to early in their studies, thus cheating the artist from the opportunity to be able to form a Realist base and then expand into Abstract Form!. In sum, there have been few Abstract artists of the 20th or 21st centuries who did not demonstrate a true ability in Realism at some point in their career!. Realism provides the base for proper composition, technique, conceptual ability, etc… that can then be translated to abstraction!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I agree with you, and as a painter who knows how to paint realisitcally but at times chooses to paint in a non-representational form, I'm all for learning the foundations of painting/drawing before moving into a different direction!. HOWEVER, there are many abstract artists that never had foundation experience!. Does that make them any less artistic!? If art is self-expression, than what's the big deal!? There are so-called naive or outsider art by people who have no art education at all who are famous!. Is lack of education in the formal arts a requisite to being able to paint in an abstract manner!?Www@QuestionHome@Com This is a good question, and there is no black and white answer!. I personally wouldn't rate an abstract artist who was technically unable to convey an image in a representational style (I can work both ways)!. On the other hand I wouldn't rate an artist who could only work in a representational style and had not the creative flair to explore the abstract realm!. It is worth noting that a persons artistic progress begins in childhood from drawing lines and shapes and then copying images and so on until adulthood!. This process is very rigid and and does not vary from person to person (accepting autistic children etc!.)!. so, given this information, any practicing artist will have been through a 'representational' period and an inability to do this well would indicate to me an undeveloped or inept artist!. In summary: abstraction comes after representation!. representation is the foundation of abstraction!. hope this helps xxxWww@QuestionHome@Com You need some level of proficiency in observational drawing to get into art college, at least from my experience in the UK, so a lot of these abstract painters might surprise you!.Www@QuestionHome@Com realism is overrated!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |