- Ask online
- Come to before class OH on Wed 11:30-12:30 @Robek’s / Coffee Bean umbrella tables
- I can go to AS-120 (AS building is next to The Beach Hut, next to The Library) after class on Wed, at 3:45 and help anyone with anything.
- Make an appointment to meetup another time
Don’t forget, The California State University at Long Beach requires me to give a final, and requires you to attend it!
- 1pm Final is Monday Dec 12, 12:30-2:30 in the SOA Gallery Courtyard
- 2:30 Final is Wednesday Dec 14, 2:45-4:45 in the SOA Gallery Courtyard
The Final will be: Art Games!
- Do not be late.
- Do not book an airline ticket for December 11
You can check the final schedule for Art110, or any other class here.
For the final we’ll need 8 team leaders for each class. Want to be one of them? Message me!
Points on BeachBored
All points through Week 11 are now up on BeachBored. Be sure to check your points and know where you stand! So far we’ve had 586 points possible. Here’s how many points you should have to be on track for each grade level, and how many peeps in 1p / 2:30 are currently at each grade level:
A = 527 points – 57 / 46
B = 469 points – 4 / 8
C = 410 points – 1 / 1
D = 352 points – 1 / 1
F = 351 points – 2 / 6
- 1p GPA = 3.73
- 2:30 GPA = 3.40
Top 5 @1pm:
- Hannah Adams, 705
- Melissa Rios, 694
- Stephanie Arciva, 661
- Maritess Anne Inieto, 644
- Joy Elizabeth Uba, 633
Top 5 @2:30:
- Nathan Davalos, 771
- Lydia Chang, 690
- Zack Ngov, 688
- Felix Huynh, 687
- Yesenia Hernandez, 666
Only Felix Huyhn & Zack Ngov took me up on this EC offer, but the great news is that they both did really nice work! Felix on Alien Visit and Zack on Asian Identity.
And don’t forget the game that started it all, Janis’ Make Trump Great Again:
Cool projects you guys! Here’s a few samples:
Wk 12 – This Week!
- Art Talk Discussion – at the bottom of this post
- Activity – None this week
- Artist Conversation – @SOA Galleries
- Classmate Conversation – @SOA Galleries
Classmate Conversation This Week
This week a little variation. Instead of finding 1 person to have a conversation with, find 2. Try to make your group of 3 all peeps that haven’t met each other yet. If that fails make sure you at least don’t know 1 of the others yet.
Draw your ID Cards together in one of the galleries. Let some of the art you see be your inspiration for a triptych (a picture composed of 3 panels that connect). When you’ve had your conversation and drawn your triptych, find me in the SOA Art Gallery Courtyard, give me your triptych, and LMK what you all said about the Classmate Question OTW.
Classmate Question OTW
Does it have to “look like art” to be art? If “yes”, why do only things in that space count as art? If “no”, then is anything art? Is everything art? What isn’t art? If it doesn’t have to look like art, then how do you know if it is art? Is art something about the act of the artist “making”? Or is art something about the audience “looking”? Can anything become art if you choose to view and think about it that way?
Write next week’s Classmate Question OTW here: Classmate Question OTW
Art Talk OTW
- 3 Million Years of Art History
- Joseph DeLappe
- Mahsa Soroudi
- The Mind in the Cave
- documentary: Bomb It
- Classical Greece & Rome
- Renaissance & Baroque
- 19th Century
- Aesthetics & Beauty and Realism & Romanticism
- 20th Century
- documentary: The Internet’s Own Boy
- Abstraction & Representation
Two weeks ago we talked about the 20th century, and next week we’ll hop back on the timeline to talk about the 21st century, but this week lets dive in on the topic of Abstraction & Representation.
Interactive Art History Timeline
If you want to play with the Art History Timeline that you see me using in these talks, you can get your very own copy & the Freemind software to view, modify, or make your own, here:
For this week’s video we focused on the topic of Abstraction and Representation. Over the past couple of weeks, I have investigated the type of art through the years, but for this weeks video, I found a more modern approach to abstraction. Coming into more recent times, I want to focus on the artist Wassily Kandinsky. He was a Russian artist discussed in the video, and from my recent understanding of abstract art, Wassily incorporated the use of colors that pop while portraying something different than what our eyes typically perceive. I found the piece mentioned in the video particularly interesting because Glenn mentioned Wassily wanted to portray the way music is composed. From my knowledge of my musical background from the two instruments I used to play, I felt a connection to the piece even though I have never composed music myself. It reminded me of reading and playing music. I imagined jazz music playing in the background, resembling the time era (1920) the piece was created around. I found that although abstract art was difficult for me to interpret at first, I have found a greater appreciation for that type of art. I would even go to the extent and say I like it more than representative art because typical objects don’t include engaging colors and its an experience from seeing the process of creating music to almost sort of experiencing it. Overall, I found that by comparing abstract art to representative art, I have been able to identify distinct differences between the two topics and identify components that I enjoy in art.
I too find myself enjoying Abstract art over Representational. It is nice to look at how the colors and shapes interact with each other instead of just how closely a painting resembles something objective. With abstract art we are able to see shapes of different colors and sizes interact with each other that we may not be able to see in the real world. At first I did not like Abstract art because to me it looked so random. I am glad that i was able to find abstract pieces like those of Wassily which opened my mind to abstract art. I guess you just have to look at it from a different perspective.
Hello Stephanie! I definitely agree with you that this video was more of a modern abstraction of art. Kadinsky took something that he did not appreciate and he turned it into a movement that wasn’t very popular. I, myself, have played many musical instruments growing up. Music makes up my life and I definitely enjoyed Kandinsky’s art piece of “Composition”. The colors from his art piece definitely did pop and made it so lively. It was a great representation of music and it is very interesting for you to note that you could almost hear the music playing from the art piece. I can definitely relate to this because I feel like I can relate to Kandinsky and how he feels about music. I definitely did not like the abstraction of art for this video at first, however, it sort of grew upon me.
I give allot of credit to Kandinsky. You can tell that Kandinsky really did not like that painting and he had made his mind up. I do not agree with him attacking a piece and an artist for something so subjective, but I give him credit for keeping an open mind and giving it a second look. I feel like people judge art too quickly. They take one look and if they don’t find what they are looking for they just move on to the next one. Kandinsky was able to look at it from a different position, he looked at it from an abstract way instead of in an objective format. He was able to look at the painting for it’s colors and shapes and how they interact instead of how closely it represents something. Kandinsky was man enough to admit that he was wrong. For keeping an open mind he was able to find an inspiration that would push him for the rest of his career. My favorite piece has to be the “Going About to Please His Masters” by Van Tromp. I like the piece because it is objective and accurate but also because there is a sense of fantasy that makes it look even more appealing.
Art in all forms, whether it’s sculpture, film or music, has so many critics in the modern age. I agree that art is judged far too quickly within our society, possibly because we need a quality label for everything. An unprecedented amount of content exists today, creating a surplus of options that have made people turn slightly more utilitarian. For example, every outside element in our lives has to fulfill some sort of role or purpose. If art doesn’t make the modern viewer feel exactly what they desire upon first sight, they will usually pass it over for something more reliably entertaining (their phone). But Kandinsky and his works will always remain relevant because they inspire feelings immediately and easily. Also, since the pieces are abstract, they are removed from the modern equation of necessary usefulness. Viewers can stop to enjoy something without needing to understand its place in a larger puzzle. In earlier times, life was much more choatic as well as emptier, so the existence of art like those painted by Kandinsky helped provide a purpose-proof relief.
I agree with you, people do judge art too quickly to fully understand the real meaning behind it. When people first look at an art painting they do not fully understand it because they have it let it sit to think of the real meaning. After you have seen the painting a first time people get more ideas as to what the meaning of the painting could be because they have already seen the painting. It also takes the greater person to admit they were wrong.
Hey Daniel. I agree that it was narrow minded of Kandinsky to attack Monet’s piece, but noble of him to admit he was wrong and appreciate and accept it as something new and innovative (so to speak). I also agree that people tend to judge art (any and all forms) too quickly, without stepping back and mulling it over, and trying to see it from a different POV in order to e.g. appreciate it more. Art has so much to offer, regardless of form, style, and even objective quality—there’s always something to take away, whether big or small. Art IS subjective, so you can’t tell someone that what they painted or what they admire is wrong—it doesn’t work that way, which people seem to forget.
I agree, though i can relate to Kandinsky. There are times when I look at some art work and I do not seem to understand it. Sometimes i feel like i may be a little to harsh, but then again i am a bit bias.I like things that i can relate to. Its cool that he was able to see things in a different way by looking at it for a second time. And i can see where Kandinsky is coming from cause even if i do not love a piece of art work i still can see the beauty of the techniques that were required to create the piece.
This week we take about abstract and representational art. I think abstract art is beautiful in that the artist has so much freedom to do whatever they want. They don’t need to follow lines or worry about prefect shapes. I think abstract art really lets you creative and express yourself in anyway that you want. One of the artists that I found to be interesting is Wassily Kandinsky. Kandinsky is one of the pioneers of abstract modern art. I thought Kandinsky’s abstract paintings are so interesting in that he makes a statement with his art and changing what the meaning of art is like. Kandinsky found art to be a way to express the ‘inner necessity’ of the artist and to visualize human emotion and ideals. He used his art to share messages to the world. Further, Kandinsky also had an interest in music where he believed that music was another form of non-objective art for musicians to spread their ideas to listeners without using pictures, but just using sound. Because he was also into music, he produced many pieces that connected sound and emotions. One of his paintings that I found to be interesting is the ‘Composition VII’ painted in 1913. The title of the painting, ‘Composition VII’ suggests a very musical theme to it already. At first glance, the painting is very busy with many things going on at once, but with closer look you start to depict the tiny details such as the music notes.
I agree with you on abstraction being beautiful because your right a artist has so much freedom to do whatever they want in a piece. Their piece does not have to have a set meaning or representation. Abstraction allows the artist to use their at most creatively without having to follow the guidelines of drawing a representational painting. I also found very interesting to know that Kandinsky is the pioneer of abstract modern art. In the research that I did regarding Kandinsky I found that Kandinsky’s art work and ideas served as an inspiration to many generations of artists. Kandinsky’s students in Bauhaus and thee Abstract Expressionists after World War II very much were inspired by him.
Kayla Tafoya Sablan
Totally agree. I believe abstract is beautiful however sometimes very hard to understand. Honestly, abstract style reminds me very much of pop art almost. Kandinsky’s style in particular, at least what was shown in the video, shows use of a lot of shapes, lines, and vibrant colors so I tied a lot of that to pop art. So I’m sure Kandinsky’s work had an influence in more more modern forms of abstract art because honestly I didn’t believe that the type of art he created was something that would have come out of the 19th and early 20th centuries. There’s a modern feel to his art despite the era.
I related to your comment that abstraction in art can allow for freedom for the artist. As an artist, I have enjoyed making abstract art for exactly that reason, choices can be made to satisfy the composition of the piece, as opposed to constricting choices to stay within the realm of representation. The video seemed to discount Monet’s work since he was not the first to try his techniques, but I still found his work completely remarkable.
This week we learned about abstraction and representation. These two art forms can work hand in hand with each other even though they are somewhat opposites of each other. Abstraction and representation just on their own are popular art forms to enjoy, but sometimes having just one or the other can become bland. An example of representation would be Courbet’s Stone Breaker painting. This piece is meant to highly resemble a real life scenario, it almost looks like a picture. Abstract paintings are also interesting to look at because there is no obvious subject matter. With no obvious subject matter the audience is able to focus on just color and texture of the painting itself, this way you are able to examine the use of it the way the artist intended. Occasionally you don’t to see just the extremes of the spectrum, you want a combination of the two art forms. One artist that achieved this was Thiebaud. Thiebaud painted a scene inspired by San Francisco. It consisted of a building on top of a hill, which is representational art because we have an idea of what we are looking at. Thiebaud also incorporated abstraction into this piece by adding some more style so it doesn’t look completely like a photo. His idea was to try to downplay the subject matter so it doesn’t limit how the audience thinks about pictures. Also, it allows one to focus on the technical ability and talent of the artist. Thiebaud said that ambiguity is as important as specificity so it becomes like a dance between abstraction and representation.
Hey Andy, I was intrigued to do more research on Wayne Thiebaud since I am a bay area native and was interested to see his perspective of San Francisco. In my opinion his painting shows a bit more sunshine than the usual gloomy weather that is experienced up north. It’s interesting to see his rendition of the city though and how he choses to focus on the famous attributes and characteristics like the hills and the tall buildings which therefore upholds the representational aspect of his drawing. The ambiguity aspect of this painting is what makes this type of art fun because while some may think of San Francisco when viewing this I think of my aunt’s home in Eagle Rock, CA because her neighborhood is on a hill and the homes tend to be tall vertical buildings. Ambiguity is important in art because art is more meaningful when you’re able to connect to it on a personal level and if a wide range of people are able to relate to it in a plethora of ways then that’s amazing. If I were an artist, I would also tend to be more on the ambiguous side if I were an artist because everyone has a different way of interpreting art and has a different defintion of art.
This week Zucman discussed abstract and representational art for our art talk. What caught my attention the most was abstract art and Wassily Kandinsky’s art. Abstract is one of the type of art that troubles me the most because I view it as a collage of random shapes or drawings that have been scattered throughout the board. It is hard for me to see the beauty in the art but I am puzzled when I see others truly captivated by the work that is displayed before them which is why I decided to do more research on Kandinsky since he called out Monet’s “abstract” paintings. Kandinsky is credited with creating the first real abstract painting. Kandinsky, interestingly enough, connected his work with his spirituality. He believed that his art and abstract arts should loosely base the natural world and that it should speak volumes on the artist and reflect the experience the artist went through to create the piece. Kandinsky also had the notion that colors and abstract forms would help transcend cultural and physical boundaries.
In response to Monique Alcala’s Comment,
Kandinksy’s abstract art also caught my attention. The abstract piece that professor Zucman showed us that was made by Kandinsky was pretty cool. I too don’t understand what it meant and for that matter I don’t truly understand much of abstract art but I kind of have this mindset of looking at the art and try to understand it. I like to look at it for what it is and see if there is an explanation for what the art is. To some degree I do not really like some abstract art because I think that some of it might be low effort work and I don’t think that some of the art that was made from someone who didn’t put too much work into it should be looked into too deeply. Kandinsky’s art is to me though art that is worth while.
I totally agree, when i saw abstract art I also did not know how to interpret it and saw it as a bunch of random shapes and colors put together. Although abstract art can be a bit more difficult to interpret it is still beautiful because of all the shapes and colors. Next time I see abstract art i will definitely take more time to interpret the piece before passing it up.
I saw your comment on abstraction and how unique an art form it was. Your thoughts reminded me of something I learned in my photography class that I thought was important to understanding the birth of abstraction.In my high school photography class we watched a documentary about early cameras and how they influenced art. I also did a little research of my own and found that photography initially had a huge impact on art, or to begin with, on artists. When photography became sufficiently advanced to allow cameras to almost perfectly reproduce an object on paper, many artists of the time period despaired thinking it was the end of art. Since most of the art of the time was bent on realism, and reproducing scenes as perfectly as possible, the camera would have seemed like the death of art. Why would you bother making a masterful representation of a forest or person when the camera could do it in less than a day? This was where impressionism and abstraction came in. They were in part a response to the camera’s perfection. This type of art is something that could never be captured by a camera’s lens. Especially abstract art. Abstract art isn’t even based on an object or scene. Its focus is instead on emotions, forms, and colors. Though abstract art isn’t my favorite type, I respect what the artists of the time period were trying to do. And I think in some instances that abstract art can be better at conveying feelings and messages than more traditional art types.
For this week’s art discussion we covered abstract and representational art. Coming into this art class I did not understand what abstraction was or the real meaning of it. Until a couple weeks ago when our art class did sketches in the Japanese Garden and we had to have an abstract drawing. Professor Zucman was able to help me understand what the true meaning of abstraction. I personally like both abstract and representational art because a abstract drawing is a drawing that does not have a specific meaning to it. Personally I like to view abstract drawings and see what meaning I can see from it. A representational drawing to me is also one of my favorites because in these paintings the drawing has a straightforward meaning. The drawing represents either a person, thing, place or a representation of the artist as well. With the research I did on Kandinsky I found that his painting was heavily spiritual. Kandinsky wanted to use the depth of the human emotion within it being universal through visual language of abstraction forms, colors and physical boundaries.
Hello Roxana! I too was intrigued by Kandinsky and the depth of meaning to each of his compositions. I also did research on Kandinsky, but found that he was somewhat like a rebel in this idea of what art should be. Now that you mention his paintings where heavily spiritual it makes sense that he was an artist that really tired and wanted to create art that was generalizable to all cultures not just one. Knowing that he was more connected to human emotion makes me feel at ease as to why his art stood out to me. However I think that not knowing what something means is more impactful than something representational or straight forward. It makes sense that representational art is a little more accepted because a lot of times that art is beautiful and easier to connect to whereas in abstraction art people think “whats going on here”. A lot of times it can mean more than something representational. I’m only telling you all this because I think you should give abstraction art a chance.
^^ Roxana Chavez
There is a lot to talk about with this video on abstraction and representation. They are both such rich topics of art, but I will focus more on abstraction. I decided to look up the definition of abstract art and came up with “art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve it’s effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures” (source: Google). While impressionist art was a break from traditional art, this was even more so. Abstraction seems to be even less influenced by actual objects. It’s focus is instead on colors, forms, and emotions. This is an interesting idea, particularly for the time period. While art before may have brought about various emotions because of the subject and coloration, this type of art completely bypassed the subject part and went straight to feelings. Certainly a huge break from tradition, and not everyone found it to be initially a good thing. One such person was Kandinsky. I liked that Professor Zucman showed us Kandinsky’s initial impression of abstract art, and how he completely hated it and didn’t believe it to be art at all. But then he completely changed his views, and ended up being one of the most well known abstract artists of the period. I have to say I’ve had similar experiences myself. Sometimes in the CSULB Galleries I’ll walk out from an exhibit wondering how anyone could possible view what was shown as art. But I think taking time to understand the subject matter with the artist could change my views on many pieces, and in some cases it has. The question of the week focused partially on what makes something art, the artist saying it is art, or the audience saying it is art. From my own observations it seemed as if quite a few people believed it was the audience saying it is art that makes it art. But I think there is more to it than that. Because if audience beliefs can be changed by the artist, then does the art become art with understanding? Or was it never art because the audience’s initial impression was against it?
This week our video is on Abstraction and Representation. To me abstract art could be many different things. When seeing Monet’s painting of the of the water view at sunset, and reading the reviews of some of the artists from the 1900’s, they really critiqued it. For example hearing what Bridget Riley commented in 1992 on Monet’s piece and said basically that after her is great career in art, one of Monet’s greatest pieces of work that he is remembered by is virtually about nothing. She continued to say that it is merely about nothing but looking out towards a huge expanse of water with unexpected colors appearing in the depths. Before Riley, there was Paik making a comment on Monet’s work and how he shifted the culture to representing low fidelity pictures. I had some knowledge that Monet’s art had a significant impact on the art world. I took 4 French language classes in High School and my teacher at that time taught us about Monet and his art. So from this background, I had some knowledge of who Monet was, where he was from, and what his profession was.
I learned through this video that many pieces from the past that are considered to be abstract are usually of people that could be pretty detailed or they were somewhat not too detailed and were about ships. One artist that I believe to be the most abstract is Kandisnky. When I say his piece from 1925, I thought it was a pretty cool to see. He also critiqued Monet’s work which was pretty funny. Overall I really liked Wassily Kandinsky’s abstract piece with the yellow background.
In this week’s art talk discussion there was a focus on abstraction and representation. Abstraction and representation are both forms of art where associations and symbolism are not clearly represented. The artist that stood out me the most was Wassily Kandinsky because as soon as I saw his composition on the video I thought, “wait what? That’s so cool!” I decided to look into more of his pieces. A second composition that really caught my eye was Composition VII, which is in a form Kandinsky’s rebellion towards what is known as pictorial representation. Composition VII, has bunch of different bright colors and it looks like a collage. You can’t really make a picture of it but it looks like something that came out of Alice and Wonderland. Aside from rebelling against pictorial representation, Wassily also eliminated traditional beliefs on to what depth should be in an art piece. He did this in particular to communicate deeper themes and emotions not common to only culture but all. Its was definitely interesting to read about someone during his time (1900s) was actually interested in creating more realistic generalizations about cultures.
I agree with you! I thought Kandinsky’s artwork was really cool. In my opinion, abstract art seems messy but all the mess can come together and make a beautiful art piece, such as Kandinsky’s Composition VII. I also liked how you pointed out that Kandinsky was one of the pioneers of abstract art. I think that is an important fact about Kandinsky because his art work is very different and does not follow any of the rules, similar to how Kandinsky developed abstract art, a new form of art during his time that nobody dared to draw. I feel that it is important for art to revolutionizing and different because it keeps people interested. Further, it can also spread messages into the world that can influence people and society.
Hey Tina I agree with both you and Selena! Kandinsky really had amazing art pieces and I also liked the fact that his art was very different from others. When artists make their pieces with the idea that the audience can create their own interpretation to it, it makes it a little more unique and special because everyone can have different opinions on it and it can mean so many different things to all these different audiences viewing it! It can definitely have an influence on people and even artists.
You have a way with words that I wish I had. Anyways, I agree with you that is very interesting how these artists in different time periods change the way that forms are art are created and perceived. It influences other artist to change their perspective and do their work in another way.
I agree, I also enjoyed Kadinskys art, it has a very outlandish and hipster vibe for me and that is what I enjoy. I feel like he didn’t restrain himself when it came to art, and it definitely showed. To be able to go against what was considered art and create something totally different is inspiring. I feel that you should be able to interpret art in your own way and with Kadinsky’s art you are easily able to do that since nothing is very concrete and set in stone. We all have different ideas on what art is but I don’t there should be any rules when it comes to such a complex form like this.
Yes! I also definitely do agree with Kandinsky art, it is indeed very enjoyably. It does i think as well have a very outlandish and hipster orah to it which is what I really liked about it. I defiantly also feel like he didn’t hold anything back when he made his art, he just went at it! no filter. For someone to have the gull to defy what society deemed to be called art, and create something he thought was art, then convince society that he did indeed create amazing art, is really impressive! Kandinsky’s presented a new term in the art world, that you and only you should be the one to deem what art can be dont let other tell you what art is.
First off, I have to say again how much I really love Monet’s “Sunrise” painting. I’ve seen it in a previous video but just had to say again because I think it’s a really beautiful painting. So anyways, from what I understand, representational painting are pretty self-explanatory as they are meant to represent something whereas abstract consists of more vague, not-so-clear images while using a mixture of shapes, forms, colors, and textures. I definitely see that in Kandinsky’s style. His use of color, shapes, and lines Pretty interesting how his “abstractness” seems quite similar to pop art as well. It was surprising to me to find out that his paintings were dated in the late 1800s and early 20th century because of how modern they look. As much as I can appreciate abstract art, it’s been a type of style that I often have a hard time interpreting because there isn’t much of a focal point. I feel I am diverted from one point of the painting to another constantly because there is so much going on. Also, I wanted to mention the statement Courbet had said about how paintings should only be of real and existing objects and how these things are one way or another recreated by artists and to a certain extent are a representation of something already existing. I never thought about it like that so when that statement was mentioned it really made me think about all the types of art I have ever observed. I think to a certain extent that that is actually true. I think he really had a point there and it was really something interesting to think about. a
I too agree with your interest in the paintings considering their time era. I felt that I was surprised to find out when some pieces were created because sometimes they even seem like they could have been created recently! I feel like this goes to show the point Glenn once made when we can take art and not necessarily pin point a date, but see the influence it has had or had made on other art. Art is timeless and if we misplace an art piece to another time era, we won’t exactly see anything out of place. I too felt abstract art was a difficult form for me to understand, but through experiencing different pieces, I have learned a new appreciation from understanding some basic fundamentals!
I absolutely agree with you as well, i too have great interest in the paintings considering their time era. I also too did feel surprised to find out when some pieces were created because sometimes they do indeed seem like they could have been created recently. I also agree with you on another point, Glenn did make a very valid point when he said that we cant necessarily pin point a date on art, its hard to do. I think this is true, because although you can say oh this specific piece of art was made on this day. However the person who made that art, was influenced to make it by something he say last week for example, and that thing he saw from last week perhaps originates from decades ago. So it is indeed tricky to just pinpoint a date on art.
Abstract Art can be found in a lot of things. Abstract Art with the definition of “art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures”, is very different than representational art but they are both equally creative. Representational art has a straight forward idea of exactly what you are looking at while abstract has the idea of looking at something but you have to look at it in a new way with new shapes. It may not be as clear and basic to the audience but it is incredible to look at. I think abstract art can fit itself into representational art in some form because they are still representing something but in a new way with maybe more texture, color or shape.
I agree that both abstract and representational art are both equally creative. I like the representational art more because of the straightforward idea. I’m a very straightforward person and I’d want to get straight to the point. I still find abstract art interesting but i don’t really like staring at a painting for a long time to just figure out the meaning of it.
Joy Uba 1pm ^^^^^
Samuel De La Cruz
In this week’s art talk there were two art’s that were discussed and they are abstraction and representation. Abstract art uses a visual language that can come in any shape, form, color, and line to create a composition of an image that does not resemble visual references in the real world. Representational art is the use of signs that stand in for something and take place of something else or to look like or resemble. I personally feel that both arts are great and have had amazing artist’s come out of them such as Kandinsky’s abstract art painting from 1925 and Bouguereau’s representation art painting “Birth of Venus” in 1879. I have learned to appreciate all art because there is always a message behind the art that the artist is trying to portray. I did find it interesting that Courbet criticized abstract art in 1861 and felt that real art should represent true and real objects to be considered art. I have really enjoyed seeing how art has evolved throughout history and how every generation of the culture has had its own inputs and styles for the art in each era.
This week’s art talk video really intrigued me and made me want to look further into each of the two different kinds of arts. The two art’s Abstract and Representational. I found that abstract art caught my attention a little more than representational only because of the meanings behind abstract. Usually the art pieces found under the category of abstract look very different than those of representational. Abstract art sometimes doesn’t even have a meaning behind it, it usually is for the audience to interpret themselves. A couple pieces that stood out to me after doing research were made by Robert Delaunay. The variations of colors are probably what made it stand out to me. You can tell that they weren’t really made to look like anything in particular. It almost reminded me of the activity we did “Automatic Drawing”.
I think you are right in that abstract art does not always have a clear meaning behind it, but I think that is exactly what makes abstract art interesting and beautiful. It is fun to make those interpretations yourself and come to a conclusion on what exactly the art means to you. This conclusion is likely different for every person, based off their background and life experiences. The fact that one piece of art can affect each person that sees it in a different way is really amazing. I looked at some of Robert Delaunay’s art and I think his art is a good example of the type of abstract art I am talking about.
I also think that abstract is a better attention grabber then representational. In representational a lot of the attention is focused on the subject being painted. In contrast, abstract art allows you to focus less on the subject, because there really isn’t much of one, and focus on the skill of the artist and what they used such as the lines, colors, and technique. And definitely like you said, a lot of the art is left for the audience to interpret themselves which can gather more interest to figure out the purpose of the piece.
I thought Wayne Thiebaud’s idea of minimizing subject matter because he thinks it limits peoples thoughts about a painting was an interesting point. I can definitely understand where he is coming from. If someone sees a painting that is a very well done and accurate depiction of a scene, let’s say a scene of people at the beach, then the person looking at this painting will see that and really only that. Nothing is left to the imagination and people will just think wow that’s a great painting of a beach. Now, if the artist takes some of the substance away from the painting and makes it a little more abstract then the viewer has to think a little bit. They have to fill in the parts that don’t makes immediate sense to them by taking something out of their imagination. I think making art at least slightly abstract adds to the enjoyment of the art. I like to look at art and make my own interpretation of it and this is difficult to do when everything is spelled out for you, as in realism art.
I agree with you! I prefer abstract over realism art for the exact same reason- I like to make my own interpretations and input while looking at art. I applaud artists for being able to replicate an image so similar to the real life image because I know how difficult it must be to do that. Eliminating substance, thus creating a piece open for discussion and interpretation is good in certain situations such as viewing art. I wonder if the artist like Thiebaud had an interpretation of the artwork hoping that viewers could make the same interpretation.
Hey there! I agree with you Lukas..I think that it is more entertaining to look at a piece of abstract art and interpreting on my own. It is using creativity in a different way because it makes you think and use your imagination. Although I do love realism as well. When I look at realism paintings, I interpret the scene- what I really seem to look and think about the most though is the technique used to achieve the look. Also, even though it may look like everything is spelled out to you in the scene, that might not actually be the message or emotion that they artist is trying to convey.
Hi Lukas! I think that what you said about taking away some of the substance away from a painting and making it more abstract to allow the viewer to think a little more is a perfect explanation of abstract art. I think that basically everything is still there to interpret the original meaning, but now there are more possibilities for interpretations by the audience that they may come up with because the art is abstract. Being able to fill in parts of a piece can make it so much more enjoyable for interpretation. Like you said, if everything is spelled out for you in a realism piece, then there is not much else to interpret other than the technique utilized or the artist’s personal experience.
Two artists stood out to me the most out of this video. The first as mentioned by other classmates is Wassily Kandinsky. Initially, I thought Kandinsky’s 1925 composition was really cool. I love the colors and it looked so simple, yet complicated. The way he decided to put this here and that there. It also reminded me of a different piece called Violon et raisin by Pablo Picasso. It’s really interesting because the pieces fit so well together and it’s really hard to tell where exactly he began the painting and where it ends. I like abstract art because it can always be interpreted in so many different ways depending on the audience and how they are looking at it.
Another artist I would like to mention is Wayne Thiebaud of Hill Street. I liked it because he said it wasn’t solely abstractism or representation, he said it was both. I think it was good that he decided to make it neutral in a way rather than picking a side. Another thing that I liked about Thiebaud is that he said “I’m afraid it limits how people think about pictures.. Ambiguity is as important as specificity.” I thought that was interesting that he mentioned that because as an artist he is okay with that because some people are the opposite. My critical thinking professor mentioned that ambiguity wasn’t a good thing because it led to confusion with communication and writing. In Thiebaud’s case, he encourages ambiguity in abstract and representation art. I think they are both right in their own way, things always depends based on different situations.
Marcelo Ceballos Jr. – 1 PM
Hey Monica! I thought your point about ambiguity causing confusion with communication interesting. I see where your professor is coming from and ambiguity definitely has it time and place in society especially when it comes to the livelihoods of people. Ambiguity is much more welcome in the realm of art because I feel that art is more of a safe space to express ideas that could have life altering or society altering ideas. But it is not something where someones life is on the line and an ambiguous law decides their fate.
I used to have a lack of appreciation for abstraction. Now, after studying all sorts of art styles in my classes, I love the spectrum between abstraction and representation. I am fascinated by the ways a piece of art can be a little of both, or simply one or the other. As stated in the video, people are often fascinated, and even obsessed, by photo-realism in painting. They are obsessed with the technical aspect of creating such a piece, but not necessarily the content or theme. Despite this, photo-realism remains my favorite. I do however, still find pleasure in viewing abstract pieces. I admire the use of the elements and principles of design in interesting ways. I love, above all, the artist’s use of color in a piece. For this reason, Monet has always been among my top favorite painters. While he, as pointed out, may not have invented the use of color to create depth of space in an otherwise abstracted landscape, he certainly perfected it enough to gain attention and fame. He is honored with history labeling him as the first artist to use this concept to its full advantage. Kandinsky, too, is a great artist remembered in history for his amazing use of color. Color can be used to enhance both abstracted and representational works of art. I find interest in all levels of the spectrum of abstraction and representation, but it is still nice to learn more about these styles to have a better knowledge of what each truly entails.
We are actually opposites when it comes to your first statement! I have always been a fan of abstract art because it was so different and full of imagination. I always thought that when it comes to representational paintings, you have talent and skill, but you don’t have to open your mind as much to paint something representational than when you do paint something abstract. Photo-realism painting is very interesting though because of how we it is able to depict such detail in life. Abstract art really does use a wide variety of elements and principles of design. I think that’s why I have always had such an appreciation towards abstract art. It is never just ONE thing. Color really can enhance both abstract and representational works of art. I completely agree with you on that. The colors used in Kandinsky’s art really adds contrast to just an individual piece.
This week’s art discussion was about abstract art and representational art. Abstract art is art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures. While in the other hand, representational art references to objects or events in the real world. The one that most caught my eye was abstract art, Wassily Kandinsky’s art caught my eye because of all the bright colors and shapes. Before watching this video I just saw abstract art as a bunch of shapes and colors randomly put together but I never tried to interpret it. I did not think it was a specific thing but after watching the video I will learn to pay more attention to it and find a way to interpret it.
In response to Marysol Jimenez, I also enjoyed Wassily Kandinsky art because of how they manipulated different colors, shapes, forms, and textures. You mentioned how you just saw abstract art as “a bunch of shapes and colors randomly put together but never tried to interpret it,” I viewed abstract art in the same manner, but I believe that abstract art is more than “randomly” putting things together now. I think that it takes a lot of effort and creativity to manipulate different types of shapes and colors, rather than creating something that is photo realistic. What I find most interesting about abstract art is that it is ambiguous, and it takes a lot of thinking to understand the meaning behind the art.
This week we are going back to the art timeline and discussing about abstraction and representation. Throughout the art timeline videos I have enjoyed learning about the different forms of movement that have been found across the years, but this week I am really excited because abstract art has been something that captured my attention before this class. What I find interesting about abstract act is that it does not depend on physical objects in the world, and it is strongly dependent on the imagination of the artist. Highly representational art is about the recreating physical objects found in the world, and I enjoy how abstract paintings shifts the focus onto colors, shapes, and lines. I believe that abstract art requires the artist to have a strong imagination, because they are manipulating colors and shapes to cause ambiguity. I think ambiguity is good for abstract art because it causes the audience to take a moment and reflect on the meaning of the piece of art. I enjoy how abstract artist challenged the notions and ideas of other artist, allowing other artist to realize that there are different forms of expressing yourself through art.
Joy Uba 1pm
Learning about abstract and representational art interests me a lot. I learned that there are soooo many types of art that I am missing out. The first thing that popped in my mind in regards to abstract art is Pablo Picasso. I remember learning about him while growing up in my art class and researching about abstract art now is quite a refresher. Out of the two, I like representational art more because I can easily understand what is going on in the painting. One of the subcategories of representational art is realism. It represents the subject more truthfully.
I agree that representational art is easier to understand. I also prefer representational over abstract. The only thing I like about abstract art is the colors it has and the freedom to draw, or paint what ever you want, but it is harder to understand what the artist is trying to say or paint.
I loved looking at all the abstract work in this video and researching more afterward because I wouldn’t even know where to start otherwise. I think that abstract art is such a wonderful form of art because it gives the so much freedom of expression to the artist. I admire the colors because they are bold and captivating. I do believe that it is a very difficult concept to achieve successfully and that it take a true artist with well rounded skills to create an abstract piece. A lot of people could claim that they are abstract artists and have really no artistic abilities. Take Picasso for example on the other hand, not only did he have many great abstract paintings but he could actually draw and paint in realistic and representational form. But then again, abstract art takes a certain type of person to admire it.
I agree with your point that it can be hard to create a successful/impressive abstract painting. I wonder why this.
I’m thinking because it’s the fundamental difference between abstract and realistic paintings. With realistic and photo-realistic paintings, the artist is mainly judged by how mechanically skilled the artist is at creating a scene. On the other hand, abstract artists are not rated by their mechanical painting skills necessarily, but more by how they represent their subject. I think representing a subject through abstract art is much harder to judge and is much more subjective.
But that’s just my opinion.
Hi Allison! I agree with your comment about abstract art giving the artists more freedom. With representational art, you don’t necessarily have to have great artistic abilities, but you should be able to create something which your viewer would be able to understand at first glance. With abstract art, like you said, people could claim that they are abstract artists and have really no artistic abilities. I think abstract art lets you create whatever you want and let you represent whatever you want without having to limit yourself to one idea.
I like abstraction paintings because they are generally colorful and very easy to enjoy. When I go to the homes of my parents’ work colleagues, they have abstract paintings covering all of the hallway and staircase walls. It makes their houses feel a little bit more vibrant than just hanging up family photos or nothing at all. Even the addition of “traditional” paintings doesn’t create the same energetic effect. This may be because abstract art relies on the artist’s imagination, so the finished product will inherently be creative and engaging. Walking down a hallway covered in abstract art becomes a trip down the rabbit hole, and your mind naturally starts to relax. Instead of trying to rationalize the surroundings, planning which way to walk next or thinking about tomorrow’s tasks, you take in the scenery of the moment. I would argue that abstraction is an escapist art form. The use of forms and shapes that don’t necessarily “mean anything” gives the viewer a chance to choose their own meaning, if any. I prefer not to interpret abstract art because it’s aesthetic beauty provides enough to think about. Kandinsky pieces are especially engaging. They focus on color and indiscernible shapes to make up paintings that look great on a blank white wall. Some artists look down on the abstract because they believe it doesn’t require as much effort as realism or traditional portraits. This isn’t true, because each artist has their own creative process which can take years before a masterpiece is finished, regardless of technique.
While I am awful at interpreting art, I think that abstract art is one of the most enjoyable forms of art to look at! There is so much more to it than just realizing that it is a painting of something than moving on. With abstract art, you are able to interpret everything from the colors, shape, texture, etc. Wassily Kandinsky’s is very representational of abstract art to me. I adore his choice of colors and that you can kind of make something out of his pieces, but there is still more to decipher. Also, when I Googled images of abstract art, practically every piece is made of rainbow colors. I think that the array of colors intensifies the abstractness of the art and allows the viewer to interpret things as they will. I think that abstract art can be very engaging because it forces the audience interpret the art and if I were an artist, I would be satisfied with that much if a viewer thought about my art and its meaning or portrayal. With abstract art, I do not think that there is only one answer or meaning to a piece so it also allows for people to freely think without fear of being wrong or anything like that.
Marcelo Ceballos Jr. – 1 PM
I definitely agree and prefer Thiebaud’s idea of abstraction over representation. I like abstraction more because just as Thiebaud said, something looks pretty real, I look at it and move on. Reflecting back I do this a lot, more than I wish I would but find that it may be due to the era that I have grown up in. Today, we can get such crisp images that they look better than the actual subject it is trying to capture. Pictures, video games, and countless other technologies are steadily becoming more life like and real to us. So much so that we hardly give them a second thought as to the amazing technological advancement that had to happen in order for you to see a virtual ocean or plane. Thinking back to when I was a child playing a video game on a Nintendo 64, It was amazing and I thought that that was the pinnacle of graphics and technology. But going back to these systems, the images look terrible and have not aged well at all. But thinking more on this, maybe they have aged well. I say this because I think back when this were new, they made us fill in the blanks more and use our imaginations to compensate for the technology of the day. Now we have to don’t really have to imagine at all, and I think this causes us to lose some of the wonder in different media. I feel that the abstract style is something that is and will be very important in the years to come because it provides a counter to the hyper real images and art that is possible today.
This week we talked about abstraction and representation. I actually prefer representational art because I know what I am looking at. With some representation art you can see the wrinkles on a person’s face or the details in their eyes. I find that type of art fascinating. I like abstract art because the artist has freedom to draw what ever they want without worrying about making a perfect copy of a person or object through painting but to me it is harder to understand what I am looking art or what the art piece is about.
That’s actually an interesting distinction, and I would agree. The nice thing about Abstract art work is that it frees you from the limitations that a more Representational piece might have. And while Representational pieces are not necessarily nonfiction, it is more likely to be creative when you have less limitations on your own creativity than when you have to adhere to a more realistic, set-in-stone approach. I like and appreciate both movements, Abstract and Representational, because they have their advantages and disadvantages. Representational artwork gives me satisfaction more quickly as it is easier to figure out, while Abstract work is more cognitive and forces you to think a little bit more. When compared to movies, it’s like the difference between a drama and a mystery genre film. Drama’s tend to elicit emotion from an audience, while mysteries tend to focus less on emotion and elicit more thinking (what is the answer to that mystery?). Anyways, both of these artwork approaches are interesting and relevant.
These art discussions, especially when comparing between two different approaches to art work, is always fascinating. In this week’s art discussion I lean more on the side of Representation over Abstraction, yet I realize the importance of the latter. Sometimes it is better to have something that is not necessarily as ‘realistic’ as life happens to be, and Abstract works of art can have the same effect on us, and even more, than a more Representational piece. I find Abstract works of art to be similar to math, because often math is abstract as well. You work with numbers and signs that somehow add up to something, and that is what Abstract art is like. While it may not be as tangible or ‘real’ as a Representational piece, it still has value, and therefore it is still relevant, at least in my opinion. I also loved the example of watching a movie that the professor mentioned in the video. I have experienced exactly what he mentioned- watching a movie in theaters and disliking it vs. watching a movie and wondering if it is actually a movie or not! Those are always frustrating since you wonder why you just spent money on it while also trying to figure out what the filmmaker was trying to communicate to us, if he/she was doing so at all. In the end, we are surrounded by both abstract and representational aspects of life, and these artworks can reflect that as well.
I really liked how you compared abstract work to math. I never really thought of art being like math, mostly because I don’t like math, but the fact that you pointed out how two things come together and make up something is similar to abstract art. I think I would rather watch a movie in theatre and then dislike it, rather than wonder what it was trying to portray the whole time. I do like critical thinking and reading between the lines, but I think wondering what I just spent 90 minutes watching would just be frustrating and give me a headache. Again, I really like the math x abstract art reference. Good work!
This week’s art talk discussion was about abstraction and representation art. Both forms are unique, in abstraction people can do whatever they want without following any guidelines and in representation people have a guideline to follow and usually have a meaning to their art. I can enjoy both kinds of art because one I can decide what the meaning behind it is and when I come back to the painting I can change the meaning of the painting and think it means something different. In representational theres a meaning for the painting already there for you and is easy to understand.
I would agree that both forms are unique in their own way. I think many artists do abstract work because they like not having guidelines to follow and just like being free with their work. I think the more free you are with art, the more meaning there is behind it. Whereas when there is guidelines, like representation, people get bored and loose creativity because they have to follow certain rules in order for their work to pass as “art.” However, like you said both are unique and play different roles that are beneficial to many artists and people in general.
In my opinion, I like abstraction more than representation. Abstraction allows the artist to have freedom in their work as well as make it come to life. For example, when we did the sketches of the Japanese Garden, I found it easier to do more abstract work than representation work. Also, abstraction gives more meaning and goes in depth about the context of whatever art piece there is rather than just moving on. Thiebaud’s work was very abstract because of the different colors and shapes that brought the picture to life. It’s fascinating that art has that effect on many people. I also think many people would agree that abstract art is a form to do anything you want and let your mind wonder around for different interpretations that the audience might come up with. To me, abstraction is more lively and life like rather than simple like representation. Abstraction goes a long way in art.
Hey Aleah Lomeli,
I also prefer abstract art over representational art, abstract is unusual to an everyday life. The vibrant colors and complicated placement of shapes makes the piece interesting. I believe that abstract act allows the artist to express their feelings behind the complex piece.
I agree with you Aleah. I also found abstraction to be a playful form of art where the artist can use various shapes or textures, with or whitout color, to represent things. I prefer representational art because I like the complexity of putting a real object on paper, even though it frustrates me that I don’t have the ability to do so. But I totally felt the same way when doing our sketches in the gardens. There was no way I could spent only a few minutes drawing the exact same object in front of me!
I agree with your point on abstraction giving the artist more freedom. With realism, the artist has to make things look real. He or she has to follow what they see and follow rules. With abstraction, there are no rules. Artists don’t have to draw inside the lines if they do not want to. Abstract artist rely heavily on interpretation on the audience’s part to get their message across. However, with realism, it is easier to convey the artist’s message because I feel like it simply shows the audience. Overall, with these differences, both are incredible styles of art and bring a new meaning to art and art history
Samuel De La Cruz
Hi Aleah, I agree with you about abstract art because it does allow a person to have more fun with art and be more creative. It is nice to see people’s imagination come out through art because we never know what they can be thinking of creating until it is completed. It is in a way a window into an artist’s mind and they are allowing you to see what they are thinking by painting it or creating whatever art form they want to create. I also like abstract art more than representational art because it allows an artist to be more creative and try to make sense of the visual image with what they have created. Representational art is beautiful in its own right because it takes skill to capture an image you see in person and put it into a painting.
This week we discussed abstraction vs. representation. I definitely enjoyed the realist era that was going on. It just depicts how beautiful everything was, however, the representation and abstraction that came into play was also unique. I wouldn’t necessarily say that I like it more than the realist perspective. I feel as if my stance would be the same as Kandinsky’s initial impression of Monet’s artwork off the “Wheatstacks”. It just didn’t seem like art that was aesthetically pleasing to me. I do want to give Kandinsky credit for actually thinking about the “Wheatstacks” and letting it marinade in his mind. He kept thinking about it and thinking about it and it made him change his mind and appreciate the art piece. I definitely feel the vibe that he was giving off with his Composition piece. You can definitely feel the life that is created by music.
This week we learn about abstraction and representation. It’s interesting to see how throughout time, the styles shifts from one to another. The Birth of Venus and the Olympia, to us, both look very similar. However, through style, they are two very different things. Manet, the artist of Olympia, was influenced by the Impressionists, but still had his own sense of realism. I really enjoy observing abstract paintings because instead of just observing, we are able to interpret it ourselves. For me, abstract gives me the chance to think more about what the artist is trying to portray. For example, Kadinsky’s work, along with the title, really made me think about what he was thinking and how he wanted to convey it to his audience. Overall, this was video was very interesting and helped me learn the differences in abstraction and realism.
To be honest, the last art talk we had confused me. But on the upside, I felt like I understood this stuff more. For some reason art has always been confusing to me when you start to get below the surface.
Anyway, a previous comment got me thinking. What causes people to consider certain things art, and other things not art? For example, Kandinsky, or whatever his name was, didn’t think Monet’s painting were even “paintings” (or maybe I have them backwards). And even Courbet, who said it’s not a painting if it doesn’t contain something real. Why wouldn’t Courbet consider an abstract painting a real painting? Is it because he doesn’t understand it? Because there’s no tangible, real object depicted in the painting?
If so, why can’t an idea, or an abstract idea, be something that’s “real”?
I’m thinking it’s just because he’s old school and didn’t want to get with the times. Classic generation gaps.
That or he couldn’t understand abstract art, and was more interested in the mechanical skills of painting (like realism/photo-realistic paintings).
This week we talked about abstract and representational art. Abstract art seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures. I believe abstract art gives you the freedom to create anything that comes to mind and express yourself. Wassily Kandinsky came to my attention, of being one of the pioneers of modern abstract art. I thought Kandinsky’s abstract paintings are so interesting in that he makes a statement the simplistic shapes and complexity of shape placement, meanwhile using a variety of colors to bring attention to the eye. Kandinsky also had an interest in music, believing that music was another form of non-objective art for musicians to spread their emotions to there audience without using pictures, but only sound.
Abstraction and representational art, as Zucman had said in the video, go hand in hand. Though representational art is a little more easier on the eyes, I find a lot of joy in seeing objects or individuals hidden in the “sea” of various shapes and colors. However, when the two forms of art are implimented in the same painting or art piece, it creates a sort of picture that I feel like is playful based on the art pieces I have seen before. Representational art is easier on the eyes, because it basically means that it represents an object or individual the way it is supposed to be. But when abstraction is implimented as well, one would get the representational art in the form of various shapes or any other forms. I feel that abstaction allows an artist the freedom of representing an object in the way that they wish. It is unrestraining as opposed to representational where it is an art form that is meant to represent something as it is, yet it can be abstracted in various ways as well.
I agree with you that representational art is very easy on the eyes since it just shows what one object does to represent a whole entire message. Also, I like the you pointed out that once you do combine both styles, abstract and representational, it produces a playful type of piece. On the other hand though, I find it more enjoyable viewing a representative piece because I can relate more to it and analyze it easier. For abstract art, however, I have a harder time analyzing what the artist is trying to portray since there are so many aspects in one canvas, paper, or textile that one artist can add on to.
I also consider representational art easier to view just because I feel that it has a better way of organizing the style and art. But overall I believe abstract art really makes people think and wondering and does not have a common interpretation and goes beyond that. Thanks for sharing
Once I saw his painting of the San Francisco hill, it reminded me right away of something that Disney would produce, animation wise. And when I researched his history, I found out that he interned for Disney animation before he focused on his career in fine art. I found out that he was known for his still paintings of edible and tasty treats, which I found enticing. Then I noticed more of his style in painting. I noticed that his style is cartoon-like and I feel like his artworks can be found in a cartoon series. Although his approaches are very simple and relates to other artists like Giogio Morandi. And if I pursued an art career, my style would be identical to his.
In this week’s video, it was about abstract and representational art. Both type of art has a different style, abstract consists of ‘simple’ visuals compared to representational art which contains ‘complex’ or moer detailed. With my experience through the art activity at the Japanese Garden, I really liked drawing both kind of art. Sometimes my drawings would look super complex filled with shades and lines trying to make it look as realistic as possible, and others would be simple sketches of trees or objects that I lazily draw. Through my experience I say that there are different ways people can enjoy different style of art. Whether it is abstract, representational, or pictures, art can be seen in different ways by different people. Personally as a photographer and a part time doodler I enjoy both kinds of art.
Abstraction and representation go together, yet they can be very different at the same time. As Professor Zucman said, if one were to look at a representational painting, you would not have to wonder what the painting represented. For example, if one were to look at a painting of a sunset on a beautiful beach, one would only have to take one glance at it to know that it was just that– a painting of a beautiful sunset at the beach. Of course, you would be in awe of how detailed and beautifully painted the artwork would be, but you would not have to think about an underlying meaning it could possibly have to it. However, if you were to look at an abstract painting, like Wassily Kandinsky’s 1925 “Yellow-Red-Blue” painting, you would not be able to understand what it actually represented at first glance. The use of colors and shapes in the way it was designed, gives it an abstract feel to it. As I researched what Kandinsky was trying to depict, I found out that he divided the painting in half; where one half has rectangles and squares and straight lines in bright colors, while the other side has abstract shapes in darker colors. This is because Kandinsky wanted to provoke the viewer to think deeply about what the painting represented and create different emotions for the viewer. If I were to have to pick a favorite out of abstract and representational paintings, I would pick abstract. Not because either one is better, but because I want to be able to figure out what the painting represents after thinking carefully about it.
I enjoyed reading your post and I agree with your statement that both abstract and representational art go hand in hand but can be so different at the same time. In my opinion I think they are almost the complete opposite but they do share a couple things in common. For example the fact that they both master the elements and principles of art. I totally agree with you when you gave your example of an abstract painting and a representational one. I personally like both and I wouldn’t be able to decide which one I like more. I like representational art because its so easy for me to know what it is and once I know I can focus on the work of art itself, at the same time that is why I like abstract art because it can be interpreted in whichever way you would like to interpret it.
I totally get what you’re trying to say about abstract art. I feel the same way and I’ve always viewed it that way as well. With abstract art I feel it’s more indirect which leads the viewer to spend more time trying to figure out what emotions were involved, what it could mean or sometimes even what it’s supposed to be. I also agree that there has to be more meaning, in a way, in abstract art because it may be specific to the artist. The artist may see something and express it differently than another artist would. This is why I find abstract art, more specifically paintings, to be so cool. They are more appealing to me and fun to figure out.
~ briana garcia
I think Kandinsky’s epiphany about abstraction (i.e. Monet) can be applied to everyone in regards to any kind of art, or even just something new. I personally find it hard to appreciate things like creative dancing and very “wild” and abstract forms of art—not that I don’t acknowledge that it’s art, but it just doesn’t click with me. However, it could just be that I haven’t seen the right interpretive dance or strange sculpture yet. I do like that he was so adamant about art being ONE thing and ONE thing only (and if anyone wants to argue with him they can meet outside), but in just a few months he totally went back on it…and he did it in a good way: he acknowledged he was incorrect and that he and his points of view changed. And then, years later, he goes from photorealism to wild, abstract forms of art.
I also like Glenn’s relation of Kandinsky to seeing a bad movie. For all we know, “Jaws: The Revenge” is a piece of cinematic perfection, and we just haven’t seen it in the right light yet. (Spoilers, that will never be true because Jaws 4 is nope).
This week’s art discussion we studied abstract and representational art. I think that I liked abstract art more because it is a lot more subjective and interesting. There are so many different ways that things can be interpreted and portrayed that makes this form of art more interesting to me. It really goes hand in hand with there are two sides to every story, because although you may be at the same event as someone else, there is always a different version. I thought that Kandinsky’s art was so cool that I did a little more research on him. My favorite piece is On White II. Although I just saw it as a bunch of cool dimensions and colors, it actually had a super deep meaning to it. The black was supposed to represent the darkness in life, while the colors represented life. The black cuts through the color to show it shattering opportunities in life. We worked with both types of art at the Japanese Sculpture Garden, while I did enjoy attempting the representational version, the abstract was a lot more free flowing and fun.
I definitely agree with you that abstract art is way more subjective and open for interpretation. I really get excited when talking about abstract art because it always refreshing to admire a different form of art. In addition, I also thought that Kandinsky’s art was interesting. Thanks for sharing!
I also prefer abstract art (sometimes). What I like about it is that you have to think to understand it, and even then you may not be interpreting correctly. This inspires conversation about a piece and what it means, where you can teach and learn from others about their views.
In response to Kaya,
I agree with your take on abstract art and I too prefer it as well. It feels like it’s a little more complex and could be harder to interpret but that’s what makes it so great. The artist’s intention is to do that and us as viewers are challenged to make our own judgement and interpretation of what the art could be perceived as. People would view it differently than others which is okay, but because of that, it’s sparks conversation between one another on what it could actually be and that’s why the concept of abstract art is so great.
This weeks art talk makes you think about polar opposites in styles of painting. Representation has a clear objective that the artist wants to depict while abstraction obscures the goal. Representation focuses on the detail of the image and trying to accurately depict it while abstraction is to change the end goal. Abstraction changes what the viewers can see when trying to understand the artist’s goal. It’s hard to really choose what I think is better between the two as they each have their own merits. Abstraction can lead you to literally drawing anything including things that don’t exist in the thoughts of anybody before having seen the work. In contrast, representation requires an object to exist for the artist to have an image that they want to create and draw.
Hi Juan! I agree with you in that there is no way to decide which is better, since both abstract and representational art require different viewpoints when looking at them. With abstract art, as is stated in the video, it allows you to look at a subject and understand it in a way that may not be familiar in terms of how we usually approach a subject. It requires a different mindset and further understanding past the superficial aspects of the work. By contrast, representational art can take us to an alternate time or location with its use of familiar physical representations. I feel that the reason many people, myself included, find it easier to connect with representational art is because the subjects are something we already have much contact with in the real world, while abstract art may be touching on subjects we may not immediately understand.
This weeks video was about abstract and representational art. I decided to do a little more research on these topics. Abstract art is “art that does not attempt to represent external reality, but seeks to achieve its effect using shapes, forms, colors, and textures.” Representational art are images that are clearly recognizable for what they purport to be, it is the oldest one dating to the first art expressions manifested by human hands. It is the easiest for the viewers to understand. On the other hand, abstract art is more recent. As mentioned, impressionism is one of the first attempts to abstract art. Abstract art has more to do with interpretation and it is up to the viewer to find the meaning to the work of art. It is created with non-objects and the goal is to be visually appealing and stimulating. Both representational and abstract represent the basic properties of art which is to be perceived through our senses. “The key for acceptance, admiration, and success of either art is not in the subject matter but in the mastery of the elements and principles of art.” I thought that was a very interesting statement and I agree with it.
I can see how abstraction started by going from realism and painting somewhat of 3D paintings to drawing things in a more 2D sense. Everything does get more abstract and less representational. Kandinsky’s work was extremely abstract. When you compare his work to Bouguereau, they are two completely different ideas. They are polar opposites of each other. I loved that Kandinsky’s work is about color, mass, space, and shape. It goes beyond what we see in our lives and into our imagination. Although Kandinsky and Monet were both abstract artists, their forms of abstractness are very different. Kandinsky had more of a definite, lined, structure to his work, whereas Monet was like looking at life in a blur. Monet’s work was “imprecise” but in a purposeful manner. I think Kandinsky didn’t quite understand that art takes many forms other than being precise, hence highly criticizing Monet’s work. Representational paintings being a window to the painting whereas abstract painting being more about the surface was a very intriguing concept. “They didn’t discover the surface because they were busy painting some other world inside”. I really liked this quote because it seems really true. Painters in the renaissance age were busy trying to be precise and capture real life features, so they never really looked into being abstract. Being abstract was such a non-existent concept way back when. I like how paintings are able to be representational, yet at the same time be abstract. I think it adds so much more character to art pieces. The Hill Street woodcut painting is probably one of my favorites so far.
This week we discuss about abstract art and representational. Personally, I really enjoy abstract art because it is really open to interpretation. I thought the Kandisky’s art was amazingly cool since it had many colors and deep meanings. I could really relate to abstract art because it has many different colors and themes. Abstract is also really nice to look at to gain a new inspiration.
This week’s art talk video was about abstraction and representation.” I found a quote by Wayne Thiebaud to be one of the most interesting things from the video to think about. “I try to downplay subject matter because I’m afraid it limits how people think about pictures… ambiguity is as important as specificity. Though the idea of being ambiguous and specific seems contradictory, I find that the two really rely on each other. Often when a story is too specific and throws too many details without any ambiguity, I find myself getting uninterested in the subject. I think that to be ambigious, one has to be specific about how they make something like that, and how they slowly peel off layers from the ambigious subject. Downplaying subject matter may sometimes be the better move to make because sometimes people put their attention towards a specific subject in a work and miss out on the rest of it. When telling a story through a work of art, I find being specific important because details matter and inform how one sees or interacts with them. Ambiuity is perhaps a storyteller’s greatest weapon,as it has the power to keep people guessing and staying engaged with the subejct matter and what it is trying to say.
Looking into this week’s subject of abstraction and representation, one of the artists that stands out to me is Kandinsky who took a lot of his inspiration from Monet, who not only criticized his work, but eventually took it upon himself to go further in the “direction” that Monet’s art was pushing. The whole idea of taking something that may not be to your understanding and immersing yourself in the idea of it until you not only form a greater understanding of it but take it to the next level is something that we could use more in our society. Instead of dismissing ideas because we have perhaps never been exposed to them, we should question just why this is and learn more from this. Both abstract and representational art are interesting, with abstract being a more simplified form of what it is meant to be, and breaks away from the realities of a subject. Representational art is something that directly alludes to a real life subject, and attempts to imitate it in a way. I personally prefer representational simply because it’s more straightforward that abstract art.
This weeks subject was on representational and abstract art. I think abstract art is beautiful in its own way even though some claim that its random. I think there is more to art than being exact and precise because I believe that art is a way to project a view or project some kind of emotion and sometimes those emotions aren’t fully clear to the person themselves. We don’t just feel one thing at a time, we sometimes feel multiple things at a time and I think the only way to express those kind of things is through abstract art. Personally, the way I see it is that representational art freezes a moment in life and tries to copy it exactly to preserve it unique qualities and beauty while abstract art attempts to capture everything as once, thus leading to a seemingly simple yet complex piece.
Briana Garcia 1pm
First I want to say that I’ve always had an interest in abstract paintings because I feel they’re more fun to look at. I’ve always thought of it as a game, like trying to figure out what it is and what it means. I like that it’s more free. It doesn’t have to be perfect like stuff we’ve looked at in previous videos. The most interesting thing to me from the video was how Glenn explained what Kandinsky had to say about Monet’s “Wheatstacks”. It’s funny how as time goes by things that were once considered normal and right in the past suddenly became wrong and different to others in the present. It was really cool, though, how Kandinsky later accepted it and questioned himself as to why he didn’t like it. He took something he didn’t understand and made expanded his horizons and continued with it and making it something. I think that’s something we all should today. Whether that’s impossible or not, it would be life changing if we questioned each other instead of just bashing each other verbally and just rejecting anything new or different. Maybe we should dive into each other’s ideas, as Glenn says, and work from it.
Each week i love the exposure of different forms of art. This week we learned about representational and abstract art. Though i cant say im a huge fan of abstract art, i can definitely see its beauty, well sometimes lol. I love abstract art that is colorful and bright. I think its pretty cool though because you can potentially spend hours staring at the paintings or art piece. It lets your mind just wonder and i feel that thats pretty cool. Myself, im not an artsy kind of gal so i find every type of art intriguing.
This weeks art talk is pretty controversial considering everything that is seen as art and what isnt. Abstraction and Representation are both art styles that can be related to each other and similar but also very different in their own ways. However they both have completely different objectives. Abstraction art’s goal is to not focus on anything in particular but to transform something in a way where you can feel the emotion coming from it. Abstraction was mostly focused on bringing out colors and feelings while representation was used to interpret an object and represent it in a way that either resonates with the artist or with the audience he/she is trying to reach out to. They are both very interesting subjects and I really enjoyed what was said about Kadinsky. I like how he was able to be open minded enough to change his idea about Monet’s painting and how it affected his art in turn. I love his abstract paintings because he went against what was considered traditional and was able to bring his own ideas to life with his own style of art.
In this week’s art talk, two different types of art were discussed. One being abstract art and the other being representation art. Abstract art creates a composition of an image that doesn’t resemble visual references in the world. On the other hand, representational art is using components that stand for something and substitute it for something that resembles to the actual thing. Both are different but some beautiful pieces have been made through these types of arts. Different or not, art pieces have different meanings pertaining to what the content is. There’s always a message behind the piece and something the artist either is trying to point out or simply just trying to show us the beauty in something. Either way, it’s great appreciate art regardless of what style they are made.
It is difficult to talk about abstract art without, once again talking about the meaning/ definition of art. It makes me wonder if art has to represent something. Does it have to have meaning? and who decides if it does? If art is art as long as someone (anyone) decides that it is (the artist or an observer) then what decides if it id “good”. I think it is a bit easier with representational art. With a work of art that is meant to be hyper realistic, then its “good” if it looks like whatever it is meant to represent and looks realistic. But how do we know if abstract work is good? Does it have to be visually appealing? and if so, then once again it is entirely subjective. Abstract art seems to add a whole new layer of subjectivity to art. Throughout this course, this idea of art being almost solely subjective is constantly repeated. What makes art “good” if it as all subjective? Is anyone allowed to decide. It makes me wonder, is there such thing as objectively “good” art?