Abstract Art - Art or the scribblings of a toddler?

I just wanted to know the forum's opinion on people like Jackson Pollock and other abstract artists.
Many people don't see it as art, rather, as the unintelligent splattering of paint over a canvas. In my opinion, it's art. No one had done it before-it was creative and intelligent, very new.
Opinions?

 

My art history techer made a really good point once before:

"Everyone says that 'anyone can do it, so why is it so amazing?' Well, no one has done it before."

Or something along those lines. I find that even the most simple art can still have a deep meaning and I agree with the phase that anything can be art.

And the paintings where one would spattler paint on to a canvas are good too, as you can never quite get the same image even if you've tried. Plus someone would have to know how each and every color effects people and such.​

 

Exactly. I used that exact phrase, approximately, in an argument on a different website.
Color theory is what that's called, I think.
Anyway.

 

I don't really think anyone can define what is art and what isn't. Art is a free expression. Thoughts, feelings, and everything else that gets mixed into art are felt differently by everyone--if Jackson Pollock expresses himself in an explosion of color then who am I to stop him? Not to say that Pollock is to my tastes really, I find most of his stuff to be a bit boring, but that's just me. Some people love him. Let people make what they want & don't discriminate, that's what I say.

 

Art is powerful, art is beautiful, art is a reflection of our souls.

Art is also a goddamn lie, because its constantly fluxuating definition is in the hands of the human consciousness only.

If we were to give the question a scientific answer, it's 'there is no art, just the illusion humans have that what they are creating is worth something when it has no given uses whatsoever and exists purely as a waste of resources that will never be recycled'.

That being said, it's the only school subject I've really shown explicit care for, and the easiest way I can communicate.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.
I don't know art, but I know what I like.


But I consider what I like "art."
We have two paintings by Wassily Kandinsky in my house. I love one of them, but the other, I consider it trash and have asked my mom to discard it several times. It's just circles in squares and looks like a kinder-gardener drew it.
But apparently, it's considered art as well.

 

I'll be honest, i'm not a huge fan of Pollock. First time i learned about him was on History Of Art courses last year. I didn't like him, those two paintings of him that we were showed were just black, brown and white colours all over the place, i didn't feel impressed. But after watching the film about his life and being taught about his style, the use of colours and such, i can at least appreciate him now and i have found a few paintings of him that i like. It all comes down to personal preferences i guess, but studying surely helps understand his or any other artists style.

This^

Wassily Kandinsky has some really beautiful paintings, but i see your point.

 

Art does not need intention to be considered artistic.

I never understood why it was a requirement. My art teachers tend to say otherwise, too, which is the more puzzling factor.

 

In my book you need intention for it to be art. Otherwise every single thing in this universe is art and the word "art" is useless. The word "artist" would be useless too since every single living being in this universe would be both a piece of art and an artist. Splattering colors at random ? I can do that sh**. Hell, anyone can do it and soiled diapers should be collected and exposed in museums. Every single one of them, they' re all unique. If the artist has nothing to say then why express himself in the first place ? I' m just one of those people who favors meaningful things over random things. I' m crazy that way.

bcjedjgbcilebhaichkshbcjxbj;,bz vdqzjlb
^ Is that art ? Or is that trolling ? Try it on a philosophical essay about art and see what happens ...

It' s funny how people are ready to buy a painting made of randomly splattered colors. Would it ever cross their mind to buy a book randomly typed by a monkey ?

The thing is, I could think that something that randomly emerged is pretty. Pretty doesn' t need intention nor meaning. I' d still favor something meaningful AND pretty though. Of course since art and beauty are entirely subjective then the very definition of "art" is subjective too. All of this rant was just MY definition.

 

I believe your argument is both right and wrong.
Someone that splattered paint on a canvas today would probably be considered an idiot or a copier of the many other artists that did it.
Their work is considered famous because no one else had the thought to do something like that-and while books get their substance, their meaning from the words on them, art gets its meaning from how it looks, however that may be.
Art is pioneering, everchanging, and I do believe Jackson Pollock and similar artists are on par with the likes of Cimabue and da Vinci.

 

Depends. When is it on sale?

Because then I would finally have a book that eclipses my copy of Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis on the illegible randomness scale!

 

You do have a point there but the thing is that those "randomly thrown at canvas colours" are not randomly thrown at it. At least most of the time. Everything made by those "random" splashes and colours serve a purpose both at expressing the artists thoughts about something and technically speaking, on the way everything is put together to make that work of art.

 

^ Then there is indeed an intent, a trial and error process, which separates it from a random doodle.

 

Art needs to be a statement on something. True art may be incomprehensible, but it still needs to have been given an intention when made, and a bystander should be able to draw a conclusion from it.

It can get to the point of being ridiculous though. Take for example, the recent outcome of a sculpting competition over here. Many artists worked hard, making sculptures up until the last minute. Another guy then went around, collected all the waste from others' workstations, and presented that as art. He won.

 

The cheesy phrase "Art is in the eye of the beholder" applies a lot here, I personally see it as a lot of paint splats but I do still consider it art. Anything can be art, and it obviously means something to someone, it just depends on the perspective. Some people may see it as representing anger or the colours could mean something else, it doesn't matter really. I understand that maybe some peoples thoughts are, not much work went into that! when a lot of thought did. People are seeking to be impressed by the work, they seek things new and creative, things that haven't been done before, things that have a meaning to them. Whether or not the paintings have this is up to the individual.

 

To me, Art is anything that invokes my emotions. Abstract work has the power to do that, definitely. Anyone can make a drawing of random lines and scribbles, but not everyone can make that random drawing into something completely beautiful. That is Art.

 

The thing about abstract and modern art is this: to me, it's not about the art, it's about what th artist gets payed for it.

For example, in the Tate Modern Gallery in London, there are two pieces whihc particularly got me riled when I visited them a few years back. Firstly, as you walk in, there are three, square, blank canvases on the wall. Te artist was payed £2 million for tis piece of work. You have to think, I could have done that. The other is a famous one: a pile of bricks. That one also was bought for a lot of money. Really, it's insane. However, some abstract work can work very well, and if you look at an abstrack artist going work, there can sometimes be a lot of complex brushwork and a lot of flair in it. Swishes of colour and vibrancy which light up the painting. However, sometimes it's just stupid, and especially when they get payed loads of money for it, it's angering.

 

I see what you're saying here actually. Some paintings have more worth than are given while other paintings are given too much glory for something so simple. Some art I just don't understand, but then that's the same for almost everyone if not everyone.

I think there is some work out there that deserves more attention, while some that are only seen as art because someone see's it that way (for example someone, I can't remember who, had a piece of artwork of a picture of an unmade bed). It's public opinion that makes it popular.

 

Is it art? Well, a much more prudent question is thus: "What is art?" And from that, I think, we might already find ourselves swiftly defeated. You won't find two people on the planet who can give it more than five hours of thought and come up with the same answer. For the sake of argument, let's scatter-shot it and throw out a few definitions.

It seems to be the popular opinion in the thread that art is "a purposeful statement on an idea." In that light, at least one great artist is illegitimized: Anyone here familiar with Monet? He's lauded as having kick-started the impressionist movement with his stylistically blurred paintings of pink and red lilies. The guy wasn't trying to make some deep philosophical statement; he had cataracts. In fact, when corrective surgery fixed his eyes and he saw how his paintings looked, he tried to destroy them.

Okay, let's try something a bit simpler. Say art is simply "an aesthetically pleasing presentation." Sounds simple enough, right?: If it's pretty, it's art. But I think we all know where this is going. Consider LS Lowry, an artist whose works, even simple sketches, could fetch upwards of a million pounds in his day. Obviously, a lot of people liked his work. He drew miniature sketches as tips for the local milkman, Ben Tipperly. The idiot threw them in the garbage, saying later "I just thought my children could paint better than [Lowry]."

Merriam Webster's dictionary defines art as "skill acquired by experience, study, or observation; an occupation requiring knowledge or skill." This is, perhaps, the surest and most encompassing definition to be had for the word. And by this definition, abstract art is most definitely art. It is not something that just anyone can do; try it, see what happens. Abstract art is an effort to break away from the staunchly European perspectivist tradition, the constant attempt to project reality onto illusion; it encompasses the changes sweeping the 20th-century West, which was widening its horizons to other cultures and taking great strides in its scientific and philosophical pursuits. If you don't understand that spirit and can't truly characterize it in the art you create, you're not making abstract art. It is borne from the experience of living in a rapidly evolving world and is reflective of that world; that is art.

 

So Monet's works aren't abstract art?