on Monday, June 11th, Brad Michael Moore said
Walt,
Nice article, no matter my opinion. Hope all is well - are you going south soon? Or already?
on Monday, June 11th, Toni Seger said
Absolutely! I am right with you, Mark.
I live on the edge of the woods as well. I find nature essential. It helps me keep perspective on how small I am in the overall scheme of things.
It seems to me, looking at this discussion, that maybe there's been too much of an urge to find conclusions where none exist and that drive to conclude has induced a sense of staleness when conclusion cannot be found.
In contrast, as you say about nature, "I listen though I can not as yet understand". Nature is a continuum of creation where we observe with awe and allow for mystery and unknowing. There are no conclusions. It's the process that inspires us.
I've enjoyed and continue to enjoy this process in much that way.
As Walt said, originally, "Abstraction is as much the place and mind set of the artist as much as it is the resulting painting."
on Sunday, June 10th, Mark said
If I walk to the east on the road in front of my house/studio, I am in farm land, if before I turn toward the farms and instead go north at the fork, there are orchards, but if I go west, my favorite direction, I am in woods and I follow a trout stream with many small but beautiful waterfalls, here I listen to the thousand whispers of the stream, the voices of the wind, trees and rocks, the birds and the other animals that dwell there, deer, turkey, minks, skunks, racoons and bear, it is the voices that give me pause as I listen though I can not as yet understand, and inspire me to paint, this is truly the quality and spirit of abstraction in its natural form, whether it is painted in abstraction or realism.
on Sunday, June 10th, Toni Seger said
Whenever you are feeling stale, the best remedy is always nature because nature is never stale. I can take the same walk every day and nature will always make it different.
on Sunday, June 10th, Mark said
You are right Toni, the arguement is not stale the words and ideas are, trouble is I can't seem to come up with any new ones either. Maybe the oder of oil paint will help or listening to the voices of the woods and stream that inspires much of my paining.
on Sunday, June 10th, Toni Seger said
Sorry to post twice in a row, but Mark's comment also brought back a memory I want to share.
Some years ago, I saw a production of Shakespeare's "Timon of Athens" that completely changed my thinking about that play. I always considered it unfinished and had little interest in seeing it produced. Then, I saw a production that was incredibly modern and incredibly relevant and the play suddenly seemed extraordinary and I was amazed how I had missed it.
When something has been around a long time, we often have developed set feelings about it which we may revert to almost automatically until something jolts us into seeing it in a new light.
I would submit that one of the important functions of an artist is to continually reinvent the wheel, continually bring fresh insights and never revert to automatic thinking. A 'knee ****' approach is what produces stale thinking and, frankly, uninspiring art... whether real or abstract.
on Sunday, June 10th, Toni Seger said
Walt, thanks for the nice words. I find your thinking very stimulating and that's precisely why, I think, this has gone on as long as it has.
I may be the only one left enjoying this, but it's not because I came so late to the table or because I want to be last.
I happen to believe the best discussions are the ones that have been around for a long time. To me, that proves their validity. We are not going to solve the conundrum Walt originally raised, but that doesn't mean we can't gain fresh insights. I have.
I don't think Walt's original question is at all tired. I think what Mark is really saying is that what he is hearing is stale which may be because we aren't working hard enough...
As for Chris's three wisdoms...;
"Art precedes life."
Hmmmm. Art is a means of creative expression, so it needs life to exist. The most basic act of creativity is the creation of a life. So-o-o-o, in that regard, how could art precede life?
"Realism is reflection."
Now, you're going all Plato on us.
"Abstraction is the light."
Does that mean painters of realism are blind?
on Friday, June 8th, C said
Art precedes life.
Realism is reflection.
Abstraction is the light.
on Friday, June 8th, Mark said
To be the last to speak means not that the last is the winner or has the greatest will, or stanima, but only that they have a need to be the last heard. Go for it Chris...I am done with this old worn out discussion. Good luck to all who continue, I would rather be creating art then talking about art.
on Friday, June 8th, walt said
salient post Jose.
on Friday, June 8th, jose said
You seem to like poetry Chris. Here's one of my favourites by Octavio Paz. i think what he says of poetry is true to painting and to the discussion at hand. Have the last word if you must.
[1]
Between what I see and what I say,
between what I say and what I keep silent,
between what I keep silent and what I dream,
between what I dream and what I forget:
poetry.
It slips
between yes and no,
says,
what I keep silent,
silences
what I say,
dreams
what I forget.
It is not speech:
It is an act.
It is an act
of speech.
Poetry
speaks and listens:
it is real.
Yet as soon as I say
It is real,
It vanishes.
Is it then more real?
[2]
Tangible idea,
intangible
word:
poetry
comes and goes
between what is
and what is not.
It weaves
and unweaves reflections.
Poetry
scatters eyes on a page,
scatters words on our eyes.
Eyes speak,
words gaze,
glances think.
To hear
thoughts,
see
what we say,
touch
the body of an idea.
Eyes close,
The words open.
on Friday, June 8th, c said
The battle is on!
Who will win?
Who will be the last to post!
No one can stand to lose!
Who will get the last word?
Realism is a copy.
Abstraction is reach.
To equate the two is to not know one.
on Friday, June 8th, walt said
Mark, it is old as the hills. But Jose's question raised at the beginning of this blog is a little different question. As a retorical query it essentially marries both ideas even as it seems to contrast them. I've suggested that there is not that much difference between the two ways of working.
In fact I notice that much of art falls somewhere between the two. The shared aspects of both has been acknowledged many times already. That abstration as an end had its earliest manifestations in representation going back to the cave paintings. I think I recall you bringing this up. That cave paintings are both abstract and figurative at the same time is wonderful. Abstraction is itself the means to the end. One must first break down an image into its abstract elements to express it in any form.
It is a circular proposition really. But a circle that is hard to break. I've pictured the continuum as a spectral line. But as with color systems it is just as easily represented as a circle. Didn't someone mention the Taoist ying/yang? What a lovely image for our discussion. In and out, back and forth, left and right, positive and negative, male and female, objective and subjective, inductive and deductive.
While our minds are modal it is not out of the question to hold two opposing ideas at once or to operate in more than one mode at the same time.
We are walking contradictions. It is the property of a flexible and creative mind to be able to see the world and then make abstact extrapolations. The fact that we are conversing via the written abstactions of words about another kind of abstraction called art is evidence of this ability.
on Friday, June 8th, Mark said
Toni,
I mean old and tired from the standpoint that this argument has been around for a long time and I hear, or read, nothing new in the argument since it began so long ago, and I do not mean just here at this blog. Sure abstraction has changed since it began, so has realism and everything in between, but the arguments are always the same....one is better, deeper, smarter, more insightful, true art, otherworldly, and peaceful (sorry Chris) the the other. It all just boils down to opinion, personal opinion. There is where the argument is old and old hat.
on Friday, June 8th, C said
Not projecting at all Walt. Why did you capitalize "Truth"? Just what truth are you referring to? Why are you demanding that this question be answered? No wonder you don't understand abstraction, your own personal spirituality is in question! You are asking a spiritual or religious question Walt. Although my heart goes out to you with hope your inner conflicts are healed, I am not the one to answer your question. You need help. Seek a religious leader!
"But if we could know all of Truth, Truth in its fullest sense, would Truth then cease to be an abstraction and become our reality?", Walt said.
on Friday, June 8th, walt said
Toni, I haven't mentioned it before but I do appreciate your posts. You bring a new wind to this discussion. Thanks for coming on board. And yes Ghandi is correct.
on Friday, June 8th, Toni Seger said
"An old tired argument but one which I hope never ends because we live in such a milk-toast society ruled by political correctness, that does not allow us to realy express ourselves, and in art we can still argue without worring about offending..."
Mark,this was a very good post. I would only amend it by saying this discussion is not tired though the subject is certainly endless with many new avenues.
For example, here is the voice of William Blake, an extraordinary artist who was scorned in its own time, I would submit, for the degree of abstraction in his thinking.
"Mental things are alone real. What is called corporeal nobody knowns of its dwelling place."
on Friday, June 8th, walt said
Chris, you are projecting again. Will you answer the question or not?
on Friday, June 8th, Chris said
It finally dawns on me that this blog is not about art, but is about Walt's searching for something more. It must be hard spending your life spreading the word of art all the while possibly missing out on words of deeper meaning. The truth you seek Walt, can be found. Seek and you will find!
on Friday, June 8th, Chris said
Dude, look at your question. Look at how you capitalized "Truth". You are truly troubled. Ask this question to a religious leader!
on Friday, June 8th, walt said
Chris, I don't need to post anonymously. I can deal directly. But you have sidestepped the question yet again.
on Friday, June 8th, C said
Besides, how is it a personal attack when one thinks another is talking about God?
on Friday, June 8th, C said
bm is Walt posting anonymously. Go back and look at all the comments. Whenever there is something he can't deal with, he pulls the personal attack card with the bm alias!
Abstraction versus reality a tired old argument? No way! How many times does anyone even get a chance to discuss this topic?
on Friday, June 8th, Mark said
This discussion has made me realize something. It is an old argument, realism versus abstraction, on it's many levels, a tired argument in many ways, and one which will never be ended. I will not go into what I think about it as I already have, as have many others, here. Here is what I realized though; An old tired argument but one which I hope never ends because we live in such a milk-toast society ruled by political correctness, that does not allow us to realy express ourselves, and in art we can still argue without worring about offending a race, religion or whatever. Though I personaly feel that one should argue with respect I also feel one should argue with passion. When we are limited to what we can say because others might be offended a true debate can not happen. I hope in art that we never pull back because of political correctness, we can be passionate and show respect as we debate but we should never, not, give are opinions for fear that some one will not like it or agree with it or even be offended by it. Art may be close to us, a part of us, but it is also outside of us. I would not attack Chris or Walt personaly, nor would I attack what they create but I may attack their ideas, that is debate. So Chris, Walt and who ever joins in, go at it double fisted but do it with honor and respect.
on Friday, June 8th, bm said
Why not just make your ART whatever art that is!
It's rather obvious Walt and Chris that neither of you will agree to disagree.
Lastly, Walt, once again, WHY do you continue to try to reason with Chris --- it's very clear that it can't be done --- when all he does is attack you, your person?
on Thursday, June 7th, C said
"But if we could know all of Truth, Truth in its fullest sense, would Truth then cease to be an abstraction and become our reality?", Walt said.
As I said Walt, you have some inner conflict going on to pose such a question. As truth is capitalized in the question, it appears you asking about God. I will not discuss religion here. Religion is a private matter for me. I hope you can find someone to talk to Walt.
on Thursday, June 7th, walt said
You found the question without any problem so I guess my communication skills are sufficient. Will you answer or avoid the question?
on Thursday, June 7th, C said
"So I have a question. The word ‘Truth’ is an abstraction. We cannot obtain the whole of Truth at this moment due to limits of time and space. But if we could know all of Truth, Truth in its fullest sense, would Truth then cease to be an abstraction and become our reality?", Walt said.
Dude, you have some inner problems to be bringing up a question like this! Are you still smoking? You need to get into the gym.
As far as the whole truth you seek, all knowledge of the universe resides in the Van Allen belts circling the Earth and Moon. Learn to tap into them. All answers are there.
on Thursday, June 7th, C said
Hey Mr. Walt, you going to make me sit in the corner if I don't answer your question? Please don't hit my knuckles with a ruler!
By the way, what question? Was there a question in that run on paragraph of academic jargon? Couldn't read through it.
Andrew, yeah you are right. I've never done abstraction. I had a lobotomy when I was 7.
on Thursday, June 7th, walt said
Chris, just answer the question.
on Thursday, June 7th, Toni Seger said
I agree that, at its core, art remains an abstraction. It's in the nature of creativity to emerge from abstraction.
"...if we could know all of Truth, Truth in its fullest sense, would Truth then cease to be an abstraction and become our reality?"
This is a wonderful mind bender... but several things occur to me.
1. Ghandi would not agree truth is an abstraction. He would say it is always real however much we understand it or not. He would insist truth always possesses its own reality... and he would offer his life as a demonstration of that. So, perhaps there isn't a perfect analogy here with art.
2. Another question that occurs to me is that if something is abstract in a partial state, why/how would it obtain reality in a fuller state? I feel the emotion of a Pollack very very intensely. That feeling is quite real and remains real though the image remains abstract.
3. Having said that, it is certainly true that art must reflect truth if it can be said to succeed.
on Thursday, June 7th, Andrew said
And not all is abstract. So...if you say that a foundation is not the whole of anything, then the whole must be composed of it's different elements. And, if all the elements are in everything, then abstract work is the same as representational work, just that the elements are in different proportions. And, therefore, Chris, you agree that abstraction and realism are the same, and as such must be one of those people who has never experienced abstraction.
Pretty much a pile of academic goulash, what you've said, isn't it? With all those quotes from luminaries like Abbie Hoffman to shore up a shaky position?
on Thursday, June 7th, C said
Blah, blah, blah, academic jargon reminds me I need more Calgon!
on Thursday, June 7th, Mark said
Walt,
Stirring it up again are you? LOL
on Thursday, June 7th, walt said
At its core all art is an abstraction. There are two extremes although most art finds its place somewhere between these two extremes. As in many things the extremes are themselves abstractions for the sake of discussion. One is unknowable and the other is unattainable. Hence Hofmann’s phrase “Search for the Real”. Pure abstraction is an end in itself and representation a means of presenting signs and symbols. A figure painting is merely a sign for a figure as it is not the figure itself but something that suggests a figure. We cannot recreate ‘reality’ we can only construct essential variations of it. It is an analysis of the abstract elements which are essential in all things. A principle. A value. A quality. These are abstractions like the word ‘love‘ or ‘friendship‘. A figure can also be a symbol for something ‘other’ which is at the heart of the meaning of the word ‘abstract‘. A pure abstraction is, by nature of the word un-definable, unknowable, nothing…but that is a contradiction when talking about art. Art is of course a thing, an object or at least an action . One must convert the abstract idea or knowledge (each a contradiction in terms if the word’s basis is ‘other’) into a color, a brushstroke, a shape, piece of wood or steel or clay, in short something knowable. All art is at a certain level knowable if not completely and exhaustively known. Of course once the unknowable is known it is no longer a pure abstraction. It is a thing, an object, a series of colors, values or brushstrokes on a surface. It becomes a reality even if in its intent it retains a certain abstract quality.
So I have a question. The word ‘Truth’ is an abstraction. We cannot obtain the whole of Truth at this moment due to limits of time and space. But if we could know all of Truth, Truth in its fullest sense, would Truth then cease to be an abstraction and become our reality?
on Thursday, June 7th, Toni Seger said
re: early 90's The timing I experienced was that the recessioin further eroded by the war and everything came to a halt at the war's outbreak and was never restored.
re: POP art. At its base, I found POP mostly influenced by design and the influences on design by music and drugs. After POP, OP or optical art took over which was pure design.
on Thursday, June 7th, C said
Looks like Andrew agrees that not all art is abstract. Foundation is not an entirety.
on Thursday, June 7th, Andrew said
Abstraction is the foundation of everything figurative I do today. It is the first element I put down in any composition. I work both abstractly and figuratively, and am preparing an abstract for a client right now.
The market since the sixties, particularly for large public works, has always preferred abstract art to figurative work. If no one can tell what something is, then no one can object to its contents. That formula works for anyone commissioning, who is concerned about offending due to nudity, race or what figures might be doing. For this reason Switzerland is littered with low quality, uninspired, generic abstract works. That's not to say there isn't some quality around. I for one am in love with Brancusi's works. That phase of abstraction, when it was still pretty cutting edge, was most interesting to me. But now, there's a lot of posing going on, with abstract works and the artists who make them, more than with figurative. With sculptors, I see a lot of retired dentists putting their very first efforts into top galleries. If you make a mistake with representational, it glares at you, but with abstract, no one can put a finger on what your intent was anyway.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
Thanks Mark. Good luck to you! Yeah maybe the argument that abstraction is more peaceful than realism was a stretch. Abstraction is hard to describe. Sure it has it's academic styles and descriptions but it's the guts and mind of abstraction that will forever defy description.
All art is not abstract.
on Wednesday, June 6th, Mark said
Chris, thanks for the kind words about my work. Truth is I have worked in abstraction and still do on occassion, (some are on the site) so yes I do know, and yes, though the look may be different they are the same, (as it is what is in the artist that matters, not the school)this from one who has and does both.
By the way I also went to your site Chris, very interting stuff, haunting, and I mean this from my heart, but even your work has repesentational images. Excellent work, and I mean no disrespect but not all is peaceful, to me at least. I guess this is an argument where we can only agree to disagree. But, truth is I am tired of the argument, so Chris have the last word, and take care.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
I don't think it was the war that killed business in the early nineties. I think it was the recession. I was showing in Santa Monica and La Jolla back then. I was about to ship 2 flat bed semi's and one box to CA then move it to Scottsdale, then to Santa Fe. The whole bottom fell out due to that recession.
I would say Pop Art is realism. How more real is a soup can?
on Wednesday, June 6th, Toni Seger said
The short Gulf war killed my business. People just stopped buying art.
"It is my understanding that Pop Art took over during Viet Nam just as the copied photograph movement is sweeping NY right now. Very realist based movements. Coincidence?"
Is Pop Art realistic? Not to me. I'm not sure I see these movements as that related.
"I don't struggle to keep the child alive. I struggle to quiet the child!"
That's why Faulkner wrote drunk.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
So Toni, you sold mostly through peace time with the exception of the short Gulf War. Since you are not selling now it might be hard to form conclusions. It is my understanding that Pop Art took over during Viet Nam just as the copied photograph movement is sweeping NY right now. Very realist based movements. Coincidence?
I don't struggle to keep the child alive. I struggle to quiet the child!
on Wednesday, June 6th, Toni Seger said
Chris, thank you for directing me to Mark's site which I will explore.
Between the late 70's and early 90's, I was a wholesale distributor of original graphic art, watercolors, oils, sculpture, etc. My territory was New England where I dealt with galleries and collectors, also worked the International Art Expo every year. I handled every medium, every style.
I didn't know there was a game about being the last comment, but here's a thought about what you said.
"It's the problem of the child to become an artist.
It's the problem of the artist to remain a child."
If you read the blog I have at my link, you'll see that I think children are natural artists, so there's no problem there, but it's true that adults who wish to create art struggle to keep the child alive.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
Toni, Mark posts his website address. He does wonderful expressionistic/impressionist landscapes. I went to your posted website as well. My bad, I saw writer, didn't think literary artist. What 14 years were you a dealer? Where? What did you sell the most of?
Once again, the subject of this blog and the comments, is about wether abstraction and realism can be grouped as one. I have a strong belief based on experience, that there is an enormous difference between the two. I really don't want to repeat myself. I have explained my view many different ways in the first 90 comments.
At this point, it's just about being the last comment of the blog. Just a game. Makes me look bad I know.
"It's the problem of the child to become an artist.
It's the problem of the artist to remain a child."
Paul Cezanne
on Wednesday, June 6th, Toni Seger said
Actually, Chris, you have no idea what I do and I have no idea what Mark does, so it's better not to jump to conclusions.
Here are a few bits of relevant information.
As a literary artist, I have written both abstract and realistic plays and have produced and directed and acted in both types.
As a film maker, I have also worked with both and am now engaged in a very abstract treatment.
As an art dealer, I handled everything over the course of 14 years.
As an arts organizer and promoter, I have also worked with the entire gamut.
And, as an art collector, my heart has beaten just as hard for work that was extremely realistic and work that had no realistic elements. Quality is my only qualification.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
Toni and Mark, neither of you works in abstraction. I do. Before the war people were much more open to abstraction. Now with the war, it is the work with at least hints of realism, that are the favorites. As was said nearly 100 comments ago, if you are not in it, you don't know!
Throughout these comments, misunderstandings have assumed the discussion is about one movement totally replacing another. Why is what type of oil one's car should use not also discussed? Where did this come from?
The discussion has been that abstract art is different than realism and should not be placed under one umbrella as some academians imply.
on Wednesday, June 6th, Toni Seger said
Mark said, "if one looks back at history abstract art seemed strongest when the times where not so peaceful..."
It's true that art becomes more fractured in times of greater stress and it makes sense that it would. The means and mode of creative expression will always reflect the times their creators lived through.
However, the idea of any style or approach forever replacing any other is absurd and not worthy of discussion.
on Wednesday, June 6th, C said
fortitude
on Wednesday, June 6th, Andrew said
Obtuse.
on Tuesday, June 5th, C said
?
on Tuesday, June 5th, Andrew said
So Chris, you feel sorry for yourself because you're unable to see?
on Tuesday, June 5th, Mark said
Chris, why would I feel threatened? I am not a realist but an expressionist and even if I was a realist it would not bother me as I am secure in what I do. Strange though, if one looks back at history abstract art seemed strongest when the times where not so peaceful...WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and if what you say is true that abstract art is coming back, well this is far from peaceful times. You may have a long wait if it is based on peace, I hope not, as I would truly like peace. Again though no art should threaten another artist if they are secure in what they do, if abstract work sells best for a while, good, in time it will turn, the public has a short attention span and nothing lasts for long anymore, maybe that is a good thing.
on Tuesday, June 5th, Toni Seger said
I think people are trying too hard to parse words and define categories. And, as a result, they keep missing clues.
The discussion about who's a teacher and who's an artist is the most ironic...
Walt said: "My hands work faster than my mind sometimes."
They should. True creativity arrives before it can be analysed by the mind. That's why abstraction is at the root of all realism because it's at the root of creativity.
on Tuesday, June 5th, Chris said
Hey Mark, you don't feel threatened by a rise of abstraction because you are a realist painter do you? What was meant by saying abstraction is coming back is that sales of abstraction will exceed that of realism in galleries. I realize it's optimistic to say such for this may be a very long war. Abstraction is popular during peaceful times.
on Tuesday, June 5th, Mark said
Abstract art is coming back! Great! But for how long? Will it replace realism finaly and forever? NO! No art movement no matter how profound it might seem to be will last long, and it shouldn't. In this day and age art is like fashion, abstraction may come back for a year, two or even more, but it will not last, and as it struggles to hold a high place all the other schools will be around reminding us that abstraction is not the only true art. Why? Because abstract art, like realism, immpressionism, expressionism is just another school of art, no more special or enlightening then the others, no more inherently spiritual or peaceful. What makes a work of art more then what we see is the artist, not the school. What makes a work of art spiritual, peaceful, vengeful, or dark, is not the school but the artist. This is fact, some may wish not to believe it so, maybe they are unable to believe it is so, but it is so. To think otherwise is the same as saying an apple is more spiritual and peaceful then an orange, it just ain't so. Art is wide and wondeful and to pigeon hole it in any way is a crime, there is room for all who wish to create in whatever manner they wish to create and that is how it should be, will be.
on Tuesday, June 5th, Chris said
Well, well, I wonder who was going to be insensitive enough to throw in the stigma of bi-polar card!
Abbie Hoffman coined bi-polar disorder (manic depression) the genius disease.
I feel sorry for Walt, and all those who fail to see. Grouping realism and abstraction under one umbrella is a purely yesterday way of looking at things. Grouping the two together is a result of the popularity of realism. That popularity is in decline. Thus the stupid arguments and statements to try to prop up yesterdays popular art movement called realism.
Abstraction, with it's inherit spiritualism and peaceful demeanor, is coming back. May peace be with you all.
on Tuesday, June 5th, Andrew said
obtuse /ob'tju:s/ dull-witted, slow to understand; of blunt shape, not sharp pointed or sharp edged; (of angle) more than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. (L (obtundo -tus- beat against, blunt).
Walt accepts this continuous blunt browbeating because he feels sorry for Chris, and wishes to be supportive.
Bi-polar individuals usually seek something to believe in, inventing absolutes where there are none. Those I have known, all artists, had firmly cemented beliefs in their way of doing things, and in their valuations, none of which they were able to support with evidence.
A couple of examples; Teachers cannot produce art. Calling abstraction and realism the same can only be said by one who has never experienced abstraction.
Neither statement is supported by any proof, yet they both are, to Chris, inviolable mantras.
on Monday, June 4th, Chris said
for·ti·tude (fôr'tĭ-tūd', -tyūd')
n.
Strength of mind that allows one to endure pain or adversity with courage.
on Monday, June 4th, Mark said
Abstraction is just abstraction, nothing more, peace comes from the artists (or not), not the school. If the artist has no peace the work has no peace.
on Monday, June 4th, Chris said
It was once said that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Then the pens disapeared, and they all used computers.
Perhaps the underpinngs of a new art movement........ABSTRACTION IS PEACE !!!
on Monday, June 4th, Mark said
There is realist art that depicts war, no question, but not all realism depicts war. As for abstract work and everyone agreeing with any one work depicting war, probably not, but then not everbody would agree as to what an individual abstract work depicts anyway, some may see peace some may see war. That does not make abstraction peace, it only means that it can ot be agreed upon as to what the work depicts, that not always a strength. Standing alone does not make one right, as good as your art might be, you, us, all of us are no Gandhi. Saying something often and screaming it to the masses does not make one right, say it often enough and it must be true, don't think so. Sorry. Any one with blinders on and a closed mind can only see their point and how sad that is, an open mind is a mind fertile for creation, a closed mind only dwells in anger and dispare. Abstraction is a wonderful form as is realism, one is not evil or good, it is what the artists makes of it. I can see anger in abstraction and in realism, I can see anger in both as well.
on Monday, June 4th, Chris said
Show me one piece of abstract art that everyone can agree, depicts war.
There are countless portrayals of war through realism. TV, movies, photographs, paintings, etc. are all used to display barbarism.
Yes I am highly offended that one would group abstraction and realism as one. If I am but one lone person seeing this, then so be it. I scream it!
Gandhi once stood alone.
Abstraction is peace.
on Monday, June 4th, Mark said
Ideas, opinions are like the granit roots of mountians for some people, unmoving. They see only their way, their way is the right way, they hate others for what they see in themselves, what you hate or dislike in another is usualy a trait you yourself have. Those that protest to much (call it passion if you will) will in time not be heard because they only ramble on, the same words, the same anger (passion). Even passion can be taken to an unhealthy level. Passion is good, anger is good, love is good, compassion is good, but all can be dangerous too. Strength comes from one's center, not from one's words or actions, or art, so to does peace. Changing minds comes from calm discussion, not passionate yelling. If abstraction is peace and realism is war (neither are either), then passion is war and quiet strength of conviction is peace. "I am not angry but passionate", passion if yelled at the mountain top is anger, passion whispered is true passion.
on Monday, June 4th, bm said
Well said Andrew.
Walt, I am only curious as to why you keep subjecting yourself to such blantant disrepect by someone you believe is a friend? Friends truly don't do this. They will, of course, disagree, argue and even get angry at each other but a real friend wouldn't attack you as a person.
on Monday, June 4th, Andrew said
Abstraction is quite far from the definites you use to describe it, Chris. You have a very tight definition of it, as you do for art in general. If I wanted to follow someone else's guidelines so rigidly, I would never have chosen the liberty offered by being an artist. That liberty is something you don't seem to be a part of, chosing instead a rigidity worthy of a department store clerk answering to a boss with very specific demands. You maintain that your way is the only way, and claim to understand those around you, yet you demonstrate with your words and your work that you don't even understand yourself. Climb down off that pedestal of arrogance and open your eyes.
on Monday, June 4th, Chris said
Can't let it go.
It's not right.
Each paragraph is wrong.
I could write for hours.
This man is a realist.
Pushing realist agendas.
Realist dogma.
He doesn't do abstraction.
He talks the talk.
He don't walk the walk.
Bunch of people, some flyin',
looks real to me.
All real figures. All real forms.
You know what it is.
Looks like an asylum.
Bend the words
twist 'em up
Throw them in a can.
Shake that can and spit em out
and write it in a blog.
20 years spent tellin' others,
how to paint a picture.
Passed from one on to another
and another one becomes another.
Another one becomes another.
And they all spend those 20 years
telling others how to paint a picture.
There was a day I was jealous.
Jealous of the silver spoon.
No worry if one likes your art.
Got money from that silver spoon.
That silver spoon of teaching.
I read the above and find myself,
cringing of all that could have been.
To think that spewing forth with reverance
could well have swallowed me.
Thank God I was indeed thrown out,
of those halls of blasphemy.
To that one lone individual
out there reading this all
Remember what they tell you
Then throw it out and make good art!
Abstraction is pacifism
War is real (ism)
on Monday, June 4th, Chris said
"I’ve said it a million times in my classes that abstraction is the energy of a work whether the work is representational or not", from Walt's blog.
I would have dropped the class as soon as I heard this crap!
Talk the talk, or walk the walk.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Chris said
Sorry you don't even know what abstraction is, Waltar.
on Sunday, June 3rd, walt said
Sorry Chris. I've agreed with a number of things you've said all along. That isn't one of them.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Chris said
So....77 comments later it looks like the wall has cracked a bit and acceptance of the inadequacies of the statement, all art is abstract, is among us.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Mark said
Abstraction is not other-worldly, it is not other deminsions, it is not different then realism as it all comes from the human mind. Realism represents an object, abstraction represents a thought 9for lack of a better word), together they represent both, but it all represents something and in that it is all the same. But what does it matter anyway what is what and which is which, if it is good that is all that counts.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Walt said
I don't fully disagree with the statement that Chris just made...
"Abstraction is evolution. Abstraction is a progression of human thought. Abstraction is what is not. Abstraction is everything that is yet to be."
I've always talked about the idea that there is more here than meets the eye when discussing visual art. My work is always about something other than the images I use to get at the metaphor of possibility. I don't care if you call them abstract or not really. I think of them as metaphysical and poetic.
But once the discussion moved in the direction it took the terms became important. What I wanted to do was to get a common usage definition of the base term abstraction. It is a big word, an ambiguously abstract word with a lot of variations in meaning. The word abstaction has been used to define various movements in art for well over a hundred years and has taken on many shadings.
Chris, I really don't disagree with most of what you have said. But without a baseline definition the term abstraction becomes "a bag you can through anything into." (Pablo Picasso) And that may be the ultimate definition.
That you are a visionary Chris is not something I would disagree with. You use the word as an ultimate goal, a place...unique to your psyche, your personality, your individual view. Ultimately you can define it or not however you like because you are the one who sees your vision.
You can also denigrate academics for reducing nirvana to an equation if you like. But academics are here to help establish entries to all sorts of concepts. It gets, well, academic. It can be too simplistic, boring, tedious even shallow at times. Some folks will accept entry level thinking as a box of rules, the be all and end all that hem them in. But these concepts are basically doors to open up the possibilities not close them down. It takes a larger mind like yours to embrace those possibilities and continue to extend them.
Unless someone has something new to bring to the discussion I'm pretty done with it as well. Thanks for your comments Chris and everyone else whether you posted a comment or not. Always a spirited discussion.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Toni Seger said
An awful lot of these comments are bloated with irrelevancies.
The opening statement is a good summation. "Is abstraction a means to an end or an end in itself."
Magritte painted a true representation of a pipe and labeled it with the words (translated): "This is not a pipe."
That's because, it wasn't REALLY a pipe. It was a painting...
on Sunday, June 3rd, Chris said
I really want to walk away from this because it really is such a waste of time, however,.... no one likes to have words put in their mouths!
My belief, which is shared by many, is that abstraction is completely and totally different than realism. This belief comes from experience, not the Internet, or misconstrued words.
As I said 70 comments ago, unless one does abstraction, is immersed in abstraction, then they don't know what the hell they are talking about! And yes, not all abstractionists have of a grasp of what it is either.
Can you really describe what it's like to see to one who is blind? Abstractionists only have words and materials to try to explain basically unexplainable phenomena! Academians step in and try to give definition to abstract movements. They always fall short. Those not in or have never been in abstraction, believe all the crap those blind academians write.
Abstraction is evolution. Abstraction is a progression of human thought. Abstraction is what is not. Abstraction is everything that is yet to be.
Realism is like cloning. All copies.
on Sunday, June 3rd, walt said
There may be those reading who are confused by this discussion. There are some interesting sites which grapple with definitions of abstraction and non-objective art that might be of some value. Wikipedia confirms Chris’s view that the term abstraction is more often than not used to describe pure, non-objective and non-representational art. However they also suggest that this use is ambiguous and that terms like non-objective and non-representational are more accurate. See below:
Abstract art is now generally understood to mean art that does not depict objects in the natural world, but instead uses colour and form in a non-representational way. In the very early 20th century, the term was more often used to describe art, such as Cubist and Futurist art, that depicts real forms in a simplified or rather reduced way—keeping only an allusion of the original natural subject. Such paintings were often claimed to capture something of the depicted objects' immutable intrinsic qualities rather than its external appearance. The more precise terms, "non-figurative art," "non-objective art," and "non-representational art" avoid any possible ambiguity.
-wikipedia.org
The Britannica site begins pretty much like the Wikipedia definition. But goes on to explain that …
“All art consists largely of elements that can be called abstract—elements of form, colour, line, tone, and texture.”
-britannica.com
“Abstract Art is art that is not an accurate representation of a form or object. This representation can be differed in many ways including the shape, color, and form. The artist takes the object and then either simplifies it or exaggerates it using these things.”
-abstractart.20m.com
abstraction and abstract art - Imagery which departs from representational accuracy, to a variable range of possible degrees, for some reason other than verisimilitude. Abstract artists select and then exaggerate or simplify the forms suggested by the world around them.
artlex.com
jacksonpollock.org allows you to paint an abstract painting ala Jackson Pollack.
wwar.com/masters/movements/abstract_art.html
The wwar site gives a brief overview of the history of abstraction along with a short definition.
ibiblio.org also has a brief history of abstraction.
Here is a realist site that rejects abstract art altogether. Chris might like me to belong to this group but I don’t buy their extremely narrow and limited point of view.
art renewal.org
on Sunday, June 3rd, Mark said
Abstraction and realism are products of the demension we live in and are the same.
on Sunday, June 3rd, Andrew said
Chris, I'm not a teacher. I'm an artist, though whether or not I'm a good one is something many people have argued about. Back as far as the ancient Greeks, who developed almost everything our present day culture is made of, abstraction was a building block of classical, figurative work. All good artwork has three elements in it; a reference to something we know and can identify with, a concept, and an abstract composition. You can change the proportions in which these elements are used, but you cannot eliminate any of them. I see them all in your work, for example, as I do in mine. There's really not that much difference.
on Saturday, June 2nd, markus kruse said
testing only... please ignore.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
All art is NOT abstract
Everything is NOT art
Blue is NOT red
Up is NOT down
No amount of verbal goulash will change the above.
Ah, teachers...I can here walt laughing...ha ha made ya think....no, made me defend.....those that can......whatever.... c-ya...seriously, I'm done...c-ya
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
All art is abstract.....
Same crap I got from my high school art teacher who said, "everything is art".
I had a real tough time looking at dog doo and calling it art just like trying to call realism abstraction.
I'm outa here. what a waste of time
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Now now now Walty, don't skip your homework!
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
You're gonna have to fill us in Chris. I have to mow the yard and then I have an engagement early in the evening. I'll be back sometime later tonight.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
"All art is abstract. And all art has elements from our perception of reality," Walt said
Hmmm... could be more provocative...
I'm going to think about this while getting lunch. In the meantime, let me leave you with this. There is a not very well known office in Washington D.C. called "The Office of Perception Management". See if you can find it during our break.
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Maybe I could say it more specifically...
All art is abstract. And all art has elements from our perception of reality.
Although this statement is more specific it is not nearly as provocative.
Now, Chris, where did I put down abstraction?
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
ok ok ok
here... this paragraph... you said before that it was your key paragraph.... could you re-write this...
"And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic. I think I like these giant sweeping statements if only because such hubris makes one reconsider what is known and expected-- with the caveat that no art is real except that it is corporeal. But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Sorry I meant to say "I am not writing in a tight academic formula." My hands work faster than my mind sometimes.
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Chris, fair enough. My opening sentence was:
“Is abstraction an end in itself or a means to an end?”
I am writing in a tight academic formula. In that you are correct. But I followed first by explaining that realism is a misnomer. There is no such thing. No art is realistic exactly as you said when you rewrote my comment:
"But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
I spoke of the secondary nature of our perception in the second paragraph in this way:
"Our sensory abilities are a step away from reality at best. We touch a thing and the nerve endings of our fingers send an electrical charge to the brain which translates it into the feeling of touch. Light reflects off an object which then is collected by the eye which again fires the optical cells in the eye sending a similar energy burst to the brain to be translated into the vision of the thing on which we’ve focused. Our perception is a step away with lots of in between transactions in the brain which ultimately translates or interprets our sensory stimulus."
I even called the idea that we could actually make a realistic image silly in that paragraph.
I then discussed Hofmann, Pollock, Magritte and Shahn ending with Guston. I discussed how their work (some of whom are more abstract than the others, none of whom are truly realists) plays with metaphor in a variety of ways. Ultimately I ended with the statement which started this discussion. Here it is word for word:
"And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic. I think I like these giant sweeping statements if only because such hubris makes one reconsider what is known and expected-- with the caveat that no art is real except that it is corporeal. But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
I admitted to the hubris of the statement as soon as I said it but for a purpose. The purpose was to start a discussion. It worked.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Dude (Walt), I honor you as a teacher! Always have. You are a good one. The world needs good teachers. I know teachers. I know how they act. I spelled it out below. They really are a bear to argue with though. Driving home the point they are making is what they do. They have to. The high school analogy describes us both. I was the one always questioning the teachers.
This whole debate clarification thing is just a great way of saying, what the hell are you talking about? The first sentence of the paragraph is called the topic sentence. From there the subsequent sentences are in description of the topic sentence with the last oft being in conclusion. I picked up on the topic sentence of your key paragraph but really find the descriptors as hyper flamboyancy. Which translates to, huh?
Something I said a while back here is that abstraction is much more peaceful than reality. Due to the multiples of interpretation, there probably would never be a consensus of opinion concerning one piece of abstract art as being evil. This is just another reason I find abstract art on a much higher order than realism. I'm a pacifist dude!
Something to pee off the realists... sorry, I just think you people are copying. You all copy something somewhere. You can't be loved by all I suppose.
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Promise not to beat me up for being a teacher?
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Walt, lets get back to the debate, ok?
You have stated that this is the key paragraph of your writing....
"And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic. I think I like these giant sweeping statements if only because such hubris makes one reconsider what is known and expected-- with the caveat that no art is real except that it is corporeal. But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
Can you please rephrase it for debate clarification?
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Walt has actually used this sleazy debate tactic before. I just want to clarify what Walt is talking about so that imaginations don't take over. Walt thinks because I lived with a woman for 6 years, 15 years ago, who by the way was an English teacher, and she paid all the rent, that this constitutes making a living. At the time, I also had a 30,000 sq. ft. industrial studio free in return for building things for the owner occasionally. I gotta admit! Those were rosy times! However, all my money was, and still is, generated through and by the sale of my art.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Come on Walt! Go for it! Lets see... you have attacked my manhood in the past...what else... oh this new one is good! What are trying to imply? Huh? Are you trying make it look like I do something other than sell art for a living? Huh? Is this another one of your sleazy dirty debate tactics?
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
"If I began by attacking your means of making a living would you feel like playing?" Walt said to me!
Go for it you j e r k !!!!!!!!!!
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
Cecil, I was apalled by the Rothko statement Walt made as well. It accompanied an answer to a question I posed which was only half answered and very brief. I thought possibly it was intended to be somewhat derogatory on my part for many know I have bipolar disorder and there is a very high rate of suicide among us.
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Chris, I agree that reality is always referenced. There. Are you happy. But I did speak about this early on.
Really Chris, if you would start the discussion without the pejorative tenor you'd find I'm a lot easier to get along with. If I began by attacking your means of making a living would you feel like playing? When you begin with statements like this
"An illustration teacher at a predominantly realist art school commenting on abstraction?"
you are picking a fight from the beginning. It's not like you are revealing something that no one knows already. I'm pretty honest about what I do. Einstein was a pattent clerk when he began his ideas about relativity. Paul Klee taught color for stained glass students at the Bau Haus.
But what does my job have to do with it? Sure I teach people how to take their drawing and painting skills and make a living from them. I also studied fine art at two universities. So what. Are you suggesting that someone might not be able to hold two ideas in their head at the same time? Either what I have to say is relevant or not. We can discuss the relavency ad nauseum. You can reference my art on wwar to see if what I have to say squares with my words. The ability to spin off my art skills to make a living is my problem not yours.
Chris, I always welcome your point of view. I don't disparage where it comes from or how you get by. I don't always agree with you on all things...but would you really want me too? What's the fun of that? One of my goals in writing these blogs is to draw people out as much as possible. But it gets old when more than half of the discussion is burdened by constant barrages on my character and my profession. I don't respond well to bullies. When you come on with your fists flailing I get my back up. Wouldn't you? Or do you even realise how you present yourself? Geez! Chris, sometimes you drive me to abstraction.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Chris said
See? Every time you fit right in there with the three responses of a questioned teacher. Teachers also absolutely loathe being challenged. Hence the unwillingness to reword and rewrite the blog's key paragraph which is crucial for debate clarification.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Toni Seger said
I've enjoyed this essay enormously. It challenges the reader to grasp art with their feelings, first, instead of their minds which is an essential order.
Creation arises through feelings which are refined through the mind, so audiences need to approach art in that order as well.
Abstraction is the emotional underpinning of visual art regardless of its surface.
on Saturday, June 2nd, Cecil Herring said
You have pages and pages of tangential comments on abstracts vs reality and unrelated topics here. huh? What is this I thought this morning. How can you synthesize centuries of art history into a meaningful dialogue? Giottos flat pattern limited perspective vs Jackson Pollack’s limited perspective? Greek Sculptor Myron's Discus Thrower vs the skinny Giacomettis vs painted scrap wood sculptor Louise Nevelson? What about Jean Tinguely's 20 ton Cyclops? This subject you put out has no answer. Ok. I will call your bluff. There is an answer.
Of course all I have to go on is I am an artist and have never been able to label myself as this or that when people ask. I always hem and haw and say I do everything. I have created hundreds of art works. They are only a visual journal of where I am on a given day and whether I have been doing my exercises. I never tried to make a distinction, considering what I did my only true freedom and a wonderful choice I could make. It is all about art.
I do think working in totally abstract form is the more advanced way of working, freeing me from restrictions of what that outside thing looks like, out of the realm of I am a camera, to be glib about it, beyond Vermeer. My works are all experiments, Spacescapes that lead me deeper into the universe. The abstract path is far more demanding of my skills as an artist. Think of DiChirico. Real and unreal. Matisse and his green faces. Chagall and his flying goats. Picasso and his many eyed women or Guernica. Greek red vase athletes. Or think of Hans Hoffman who used color for his experiments.
And STRANGE how, in the middle of an abstract vs realistic art blog, you throw out the fact that Mark Rothko killed himself! I was amazed. Is this to warn us abstract artists that we are in danger of going mad if we make abstract art? Or is it to stimulate discussion? I actually have two books among many on my crowded side table, one by Mark Rothko and one with his works in color plates. I say Mark Rothkos abstract art is the most realistic art of all.
Some years ago, I went to Rothko Chapel in Houston, saw Rothkos 14 huge black paintings. WHAAAT I thought at first. What is this guy selling?
But I sat a spell, and soon images started marching in cadence across those 14 huge black meaningless screens, dancing, wars, marching armies, flying things. Colors started too, mauves, greens, blues, and as I watched the more intense the experience became. It was so amazing. I have never thought about art in the same way since. I cannot see the difference between abstract and reality. It’s all about art and now you have 50 nifty blog replies now.
on Saturday, June 2nd, walt said
Sure. That works. Beast...I like that. The French all them Fauves.
on Saturday, June 2nd, chris said
You are an absolute beast to have a discussion with Walt. You rarely if ever accept other theories other than your own. You have an intense fear of being wrong. I've known some teachers quite well in my day. These are all common traits of a teacher. You like being a teacher. You are more teacher than artist.
How about re-writing this paragraph. Use some different words....
"And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic. I think I like these giant sweeping statements if only because such hubris makes one reconsider what is known and expected-- with the caveat that no art is real except that it is corporeal. But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
on Friday, June 1st, Chris said
I think the high school analogy fits. You answered my question with another quick terse reply.
on Friday, June 1st, walt said
Chris, first I have not bashed abstraction. In fact I've said it was an important element in the balance of art. The assumption that I'm bashing abstraction is simply in your head, an assumption, a projection.
Second, I'm far from a realist as an artist. Though I don't often deal in pure non-objective abstraction. But then not all of your work is pure abstraction either. I have a sample in my backyard of an abstracted or as some might call it a stylized Somali Warrior figure. Your portrait series is an expressionist series of faces. Representational though not realistic.
If reality is a construct (and of course it is) then of what is it constructed? Bits and pieces of percieved reality and assumption all filtered through the individual brain and emotions. In other words the abstract detritous of an incomplete knowledge some-- true and some imagined. Constructs are often abstract because there is always a difference between the individual and the common consciousness of so called shared reality. So yes your unique individualism is also a part of it. As I suggested in the beginning, these are two ends of a spectrum. The whole is tied together.
Now remember I didn't say abstraction and realism are the same. But here is what I did say.
"And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic. I think I like these giant sweeping statements if only because such hubris makes one reconsider what is known and expected-- with the caveat that no art is real except that it is corporeal. But the reality is outside the work of art and is only referenced by it."
As to the freedom abstraction brings...yes it can. But remember Rothko killed himself.
Chris, why do you always put me down? You can't seem to say anything without some pejorative or derogatory reference to my being a teacher. It is how you began your critique. I don't rank on you for doing what you must to make a living. Leave the teaching out of it and lets see if we can have a civil discussion. We've had a few in the past. They were wonderful.
on Friday, June 1st, Chris said
Does anyone else remember high school? Remember when a student would question the teacher how upset some of those teachers got? Sometimes a quick terse reply would respond to the questioning like, "Thanks for your observations". Other times the response would be so long one forgot what the question was. And still other times the student would be raked over the coals and even have his manhood questioned.
Remember how the other students would react to a student asking a question? Remember how they would sometimes gang up against the student and support the teacher no matter how wrong the teacher was?
Can anyone answer the question:
With the pretexts of reality, is abstraction our only true freedom?"
You can also just answer the second part of that question if you wish.
on Friday, June 1st, Chris said
Nice twist of words there Walt! Nice try in trying to gain some credence to your abstraction bashing blog. We don't agree.
You used two quotes from two separate paragraphs in an attempt to bring things full circle back to an essence of superiority. Ok, lets look at those two quotes:
"If reality IS abstraction, how then could one abstract it?"
And you answered your own question when you said...
"Reality is a construct. It's what everyone everywhere thinks it is"
First of all, how can you make blind statements such as this without saying just what the hell you are actually saying? If you notice in my writing, I always state the essence of what I'm saying. Such as, abstraction and realism are not the same. Is that what you are saying also, Walt?
These two sentences show the disparity between abstraction and realism, not a likeness. Reality is a construct meaning that realism is based on pretexts. Common consciousness falls into these contexts. History falls into these contexts. I don't think you understand.
The whole paragraph was: "Reality is a construct. It's what everyone everywhere thinks it is. Abstraction is a uniqueness of the individual. This uniqueness may or may not be common in another dimension."
Answer this question Mr. Realist, I mean Walt; " With the pretexts of reality, is abstraction our only true freedom?"
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
forgive me folks, i hit the submit button inadvertently again. markus, you might consider deleting this last post of mine.
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
And I am saying that the building blocks of what we call reality, Chris, are anything but real, and that abstraction on it's own as a 'tool' in art may fail to hit the nail home. It may do it for the few who can 'see' it but it does not establish a bridge for others who might be curious about finding out if there is something on the other side... Like I said before, Chris, we are not all able to keep up the state of awareness you apparently keep up, but we sense something is amiss and we are groping for straws in the hope that one of them will teach us the next lesson.
I am also saying that an artist in choosing to use some elements of the hallucination we are all partaking in and breaking it up [allowing some of the 'picture' to come into focus] is not committing a capital crime - which, I will remind you Chris, is what you seem to be admonishing Walt about. We are having a talk, you insist on making it a monologue, manipulating concepts and adapting them to whatever you feel is the best manoeuvre to outwit us all.
The question was - and you know this as well as anybody else on this forum: is abstraction [the use of abstraction as a technique in art, if one can describe it thus] an end in itself or a means to an end [a means to communicate a new type of knowledge about what we call reality and which can only be brought about by an imprint of a certain quality]? You use an array of tools in your work to bring this across, am I correct? What we are asking ourselves here is whether this one [abstraction as a 'technique', not as a concept] can help to bring that message home. But I think bm was right, there is little point in trying to reach out to you because... well I don't know why, just because! Pity, because I had expected something else out of this particular exchange. I'm checking out.
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
sorry: can help to bring that message home all by itself, without any links or hints to the world we are immersed in. Good bye
on Friday, June 1st, walt said
Chris you said...
"If reality IS abstraction, how then could one abstract it?"
And you answered your own question when you said...
"Reality is a construct. It's what everyone everywhere thinks it is"
In other words reality is an abstraction if only because we are limited in our temporal (4-D) comprehension of it.
This is more or less what I was saying all along. Thanks Chris. I knew we basically agreed with each other.
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
And I am saying that the building blocks of what we call reality, Chris, are anything but real, and that abstraction on it's own as a 'tool' in art may fail to hit the nail home. It may do it for the few who can 'see' it but it does not establish a bridge for others who might be curious about finding out if there is something on the other side... Like I said before, Chris, we are not all able to keep up the state of awareness you apparently keep up, but we sense something is amiss and we are groping for straws in the hope that one of them will teach us the next lesson.
I am also saying that an artist in choosing to use some elements of the hallucination we are all partaking in and breaking it up [allowing some of the 'picture' to come into focus] is not committing a capital crime - which, I will remind you Chris, is what you seem to be admonishing Walt about. We are having a talk, you insist on making it a monologue, manipulating concepts and adapting them to whatever you feel is the best manoeuvre to outwit us all.
The question was - and you know this as well as anybody else on this forum: is abstraction [the use of abstraction as a technique in art, if one can describe it thus] an end in itself or a means to an end [a means to communicate a new type of knowledge about what we call reality and which can only be brought about by an imprint of a certain quality]? You use an array of tools in your work to bring this across, am I correct? What we are asking ourselves here is whether this one [abstraction as a 'technique', not as a concept] can help to bring that message home. But I think bm was right, there is little point in trying to reach out to you because... well I don't know why, just because! Pity, because I had expected something else out of this particular exchange. I'm checking out.
on Friday, June 1st, Chris said
Wasn't trying for sarcasm. I guess that foiled the points I was making. One can always choose to see the sock as a shoe or the air as a sea. One would think the mind is a place of freedom. Is it? With the pretexts of reality, is abstraction our only true freedom?
So often when one art movement rises to overwhelming popularity, we lose touch with the others. Even here in this blog and the comments, there is a predilection towards realism to the extent of takeover status, or squashing of abstraction by claims of realism being the same.
Hey, I've seen a lot of realism depicting war battles, deviancy, violence, etc. But you know what? Every abstract piece of art is subject to multitudes of interpretation. So at this point in the conversation I will say, yes, abstraction is better however it certainly is not in favor at this time.
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
I've put down how i see it, Chris. It is obvious that i still cannot see it otherwise. Your sarcastic remarks, however, don't help me go beyond that.
on Friday, June 1st, Chris said
Ellen, I never said one was better than the other or that one must choose one or the other. Have you read through all the comments? I am stressing that there is a distinction between realism and abstraction and that they are NOT the same!
on Friday, June 1st, Ellen said
Chris- I visited your web page and saw the passion in your work. I can also appreciate the art and passion of Walt, Jose, Mark and others. Why do I have to pigeonhole myself into caring about just one genre of expression? When I was in college c.1967, I took an art class with the son of a fameous abstract expressionist. He asked us to go around the room and tell our favorite artist. "Rothko, de Kooning, Oldenberg, etc." I was working on abstract oils using color primarily as my subject: the juxtaposition of color as tint and layers. I loved working this way and found it very instructive and liberating. However, when my turn came to tell my favorite artist, I said Norman Rockwell. I have always admired Rockwell and many of the other great illustrators (Gibson, N C Wyeth, Ben Shawn, Michaelangelo who sometimes illustrated for the Pope). Perhaps in the chaos of the 60's, Rockwell was an anchor for me. My teacher replied, "Not only don't you deserve to be in my class, you don't deserve to be ALIVE." THAT was an eyeopener. You want PASSION....there it is. I recovered after awhile (I was only 20) and still respect Rockwell enormously. I also appreciate de Kooning et al. Re: the new (sort of) outpouring of copycat computer/photo work, there have always been ripoffs, knockoffs and hucksters in art and everywhere else. I don't have too much time to worry about them. Actually, I think that the computer has promoted fine arts....more people aware of the arts because of the internet.
on Friday, June 1st, Chris Mohler said
Sounds to me as though a couple people have been adjusting their shorts here lately.
To say reality is abstraction conotates a demotion of what abstraction entails. One grey area of which I have yet to discuss, is the abstraction of reality versus true pure abstraction. If reality IS abstraction, how then could one abstract it?
If you do not taste the pudding, how do you know what it tastes like? Does going by what someone says really tell you what that pudding tastes like? I can attempt to describe abstraction to everyone but yes I fall short. Those who have found themselves in the throes of abstraction are the ones who really know. Then they attempt to show others the best way they know how, through the 4 dimensions available to humankind.
Reality is a construct. It's what everyone everywhere thinks it is. Abstraction is a uniqueness of the individual. This uniqueness may or may not be common in another dimension.
on Friday, June 1st, Mark said
Chris, sorry that I took your passion as anger, my mistake. But I disagree that one needs to go into abstraction to see other worlds. My paintings are very loosly based on reality but more so based on the voices of nature that I hear. Abstraction can also be very angry, where as representional works can calm and heal, just as abstraction can do. The real point is there is no right way, no right kind of art, realism, impressionism, expressionism, abstractionism, like it or not at the root all are the same, and like it or not there is room for all. That is my passion speaking. I get bored with this "No what I do is real art you just copy" crap, "No realism is real art" crap. No the photos made to look like paintings do not bother me, any more then photos made into abstractions which are also in galleries now bother me. There is room for all, good and bad, sorry to say about the bad, but it is a reality and it will not change so I have learned to except it and to use my passion to create rather then to yell out against the cruel world. Use my energy to do better work, to enlighten, rather then to waste it in words people are tired of hearing.
on Friday, June 1st, jose said
Chris,'some of you' was me, I visited your web page. I did not say your work was realist, I said you understood the need to resort to figuration to sometimes bring the message across. And I said other things Chris, things that I thought would engage the enthusiasm you claim to possess. But I see you've got stuck on a phrase - sixteen words you've chosen not to thoroughly investigate in spite of the knowledge you claim to have of certain theories. Your interest clearly lies in the dimensions common man misses out on for reasons that need not be discussed here. You are not the only one interested in this, yours is not the only true way to conjure in us what the realisation of further dimensions might awaken in us - abstraction is one way to approach it, yes, but the use of what we commonly agree to call realism cannot be ruled out. However, after what you have stated about escaping the cruelties of the world through abstraction, you have left me dumbfounded.
Walt, thanks. The process of destruction and reconstruction and the resulting superimposition of layers is a humble attemtp to capture what it is we are all trying to capture as best we can - You in your way, Chris in his, Mark, Olivier, Ellen, Brad, Andrew... in their ways. Sometimes a figure needs to appear, sometimes gesture captures it by itself in one single movement, sometimes the two blend into something greater than what we had intended to bring out and it surprises us.
And yes, Chris, if you look into it, what we have commonly agreed to call reality IS abstraction... an abstraction you've grown accostumed to live within and take for granted but an abstraction nonetheless.
on Thursday, May 31st, Chris said
Ha ha! Some of my favorite paintings are of still lifes of fruit in a bowl on a table. Oh, and I'm a sucker for those quasi-impressionist plein-air paintings of country waters and tall grasses. Ha ha, probably because I spent too many years as a starving artist and my studio is in the city.
There are gray areas with everything. So I hope y'all don't get yer britches all twisted!
c-ya
on Thursday, May 31st, Chris Mohler said
Mark, one can debate without being angry. I am not angry. Passionate yes. Angry, no.
As soon as I read Walt's blog, I felt that abstraction was getting a raw deal, misrepresented if you will. I was born for abstraction. I see other worlds, times, feelings etc., not akin to this "real" world. Believe it or not, I was doing abstraction before I had any knowledge of art. I built things as a child that as I later found out in college, fit right in with the minimalist period.
Later on as a child, I often visited the incredible Cleveland Museum of art. There, I witnessed first hand, the distinctions between abstraction and realism. I've had to struggle throughout my life. No silver spoon has ever been in my mouth. I realized during those museum visits that I could escape from the cruelties of this world through abstraction. The art of realism was often vulgar and violent whereas abstraction gave peace, tranquility, and a place to go and flourish, away from hostilities of the real world of wars, corruption, and evil. Besides, the camera and photoshop replaces the need for artists to slave with a brush in their hands. Doesn't that tear ya up though? All that copied photograph crap in New York right now? I copied one photograph in college and said man, this is too easy, this sucks.
Any ways, I'm very passionate about the distinctions of realism and abstraction. By no means what so, so, ever, are they the same. So a statement such as Walter's: " And so I like to say that all art is abstract and all art is realistic.", really, really makes me want to say, that ain't right!
Some of you have gone to my webpage and without perusing all the pages, proclaim that I have some realism in there. Expressionism yes, realism? No.
I am open to share my knowledge of abstraction and such things as common consciousness. Just email me. Thanks.
on Thursday, May 31st, Mark said
Walt, I didn't mean to imply that you are stating that one school was better then another, it was others who's comments I read that way, perhaps I am wrong and they did not.
Chris, Walt does not need any of us to defend him and I will not do so here....but....give it a break and find your center, your anger must eat you up daily. I say this with all due respect and compassion.
on Thursday, May 31st, olivier said
My friends and the others,
you know who care I just erased.. what next?
on Thursday, May 31st, walt said
Thanks for your observations.
on Thursday, May 31st, Chris said
Painting from memory is NOT abstraction. It's expressionism.
Walt, give it up! Your paintings are not abstract.
Abstraction is a place. A place where there are many places. Abstraction is a time, another time. Abstraction is a feeling among many feelings. Abstraction is existence beyond existence.
Abstract art is the rendering of abstraction.
on Thursday, May 31st, gabim@shaw.ca">Gabriella
said
“Is abstraction an end in itself or a means to an end?” 
