If you're anything like me, you've probably been operating on the incorrect assumption for a very long time that abstract art means art that doesn't look like anything at all. Unfortunately, this is tragic result of a confluence of events and definitions occurring at the New York school of art in the middle part of the 20th century.
This piece of art, (the big pink one) by Barbara Howell,
which I have hanging on my own wall, is not abstract.
Jackson Pollock is not an Abstract artist. He is an Abstract Expressionist.
First off, let me try to explain what Abstracting actually means.
To abstract something means that you are PULLING AWAY from the image in front of you, to give a more vague interpretation of the thing.
LET ME TELL YOU
WHAT WE MEAN
BY ABSTRACT:
When something becomes Abstracted, it means that it has become simplified in its form. It still presents mostly as the thing that you were originally observing, but the game is to see how far you might be able to abstract a thing before it becomes unrecognizable.
To create an Abstract work of art - you need it to be something. It does not always have to look like that thing, but it still has to have the original INTENT of being a thing.
If a painting was never made to look like anything at all,
then it is called Nonrepresentational. Salvadore Dali made a lot of these.
AND ALONG CAME THE FUCKING NEW YORK SCHOOL AND SCREWED THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Now that we know what "Abstract" actually means - we can delve a little bit deeper into what the fuck "Abstract Expressionism" means, and why you should ALWAYS use the full title when referring to Jackson Pollock.
Follow

No comments :
Post a Comment