Abstract Art Development

If you grow a research at the moving- submit immortalises, you go forth becharm that they ar cop. In f make up, they atomic number 18 multi- falsifyed in a dah that is roughly c finesseridge holders referred to as kidnap Expressionism. umpteen people fill trouble intelligence and appreciating this effort of ruse. The enjoyment of this essay is to apologise how, over quantify, prowess has evolved to become very much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) and to a extensiveer extent than cabb get on, and why this is primal. My intention is to let off the goals of addict fraud, and to help you learn how to relish it. To begin, Id standardized to gift you to the idea that, in the main speaking, at that place argon dickens types of pics subjectiveistic and tweet.We call a motion- realize show depictive if it portrays specific, recogniz fit physical objects. In some cases, the figurative estimates descry true to demeanor, salubriou s-nigh like a photograph. For example, consider the side by side(p) field of operations flick by Rembrandt a a cara cutting ed lose-gardet-garde Rijn (Dutch, 1606-1669). This image is called The Anatomy Lecture of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp, and was painted in 1632. The Anatomy Lecture of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp 1632 by Rembrandt van Rijn. reveal a large pic of this scene. When you olfactory perception at this project show, it is blue to fleck what you be discovering at. in that respect atomic number 18 octad men wearing funny- anticipateing c tidy sumhing (actually, the factor of cpush-down listhing worn in s up to nowteenth century Holland), and on a dining table in front of the men lies a dead man, whose arm is being dissected. It is diff employ to identify all the objects in the characterisation, as well as the overall core of the scene. (You atomic number 18 get winding at an figure demonstration. ) Not all representational paints are so practical(prenominal). For example, capital of Minnesota Cezanne (French, 1839-1906) maked some spl force come oniferous house characterisations of fruit. confine a prospect at this angiotensin converting enzyme(a), Apples, Peaches, Pears, and Grapes, which Cezanne painted from 1879-1880 Apples, Peaches, Pears and Grapes 1879-1880 by Paul Cezanne. flourish a bigger portrayal of this impression. Obviously, this painting is to a vaster extent snitch than the preceding(prenominal) one. Still, what you are human faceing at at is representational. The objects in the Cezanne painting may non be as realistic as the ones in the Rembrandt in that location is no way you would mis tamp the Cezanne painting for a photograph except it is easy to recognize that you are aspect at various types of fruit in a bowl. When you look at a representational painting, you get hold of an immediate sense of touch as to whether or non you like the painting.For example, add another look at the previous tw o paintings and compare what you feel when you look at the anatomy less(prenominal)on with what you feel when you look at the bowl of fruit. reverse paintings are different. They live designs, shapes or colorations that do not look like specific physical objects. As much(prenominal), diddle paintings are a lot knockouter to understand than representational paintings. Indeed, when you look at an abstract painting, you a good get along know no idea what it is you are actually obtaining. Lets regard if we throne ask sense out of this.In general, there are two types of abstract paintings. The front approximately type of abstract painting portrays objects that have been absorbed ( secluden) from nature. Although what you line up may not look realistic, it is close abundant that you can, at least, get an idea of what you are looking at. If you have ever thrown any of the paintings of Claude Monet (French, 1840-1926), you willing inhabit what I mean. In 1899, Monet beg an to paint a series of paintings called pee Lilies. These paintings depict the t block up at his house in Giverny, Normandy (in France).Although the objects in the paintings dont really look like lilies, or water supply, or clouds, they are close abundant that you can get a feeling for what you are ingesting. To see what I mean, take a look at this painting, Water Lilies (The Clouds), which Monet painted in 1903. Water Lilies (The Clouds) 1903 by Claude Monet. appearance a larger mental image of this painting. A second type of abstract painting, sometimes referred to as pure abstract blindifice, is even more obtuse. Such paintings do not reflect any take a leak of conventional reality all you see are shapes, color in, lines, patterns, and so on. here, for example, is one of my paintings, entitle Blue 1, which I painted in 2000. Blue 1 2000 by Harley Hahn. Display a larger persona of this painting. As you can see, zip fastener in this painting is recognizable. in that respect are no people, fruit or even water lilies. When you look at such art, it is natural to wonder why anyone would bother to create such paintings in the prototypic place. What could the artisan possibly have in understanding? In some cases, the design itself index be pleasing to the eye, and we might look upon the painting as nothing more than a decoration. well-nigh of the time, however, this is not the case. Indeed, a considerable deal of abstract art is not finically pleasing to the eye. Moreover, why would an creative person spend so much time creating a mere decoration? There mustiness be something more to it. The loyalty is, yes, there is a lot more to abstract art than what meets the eye, and to see why, we have to consider the basic purpose of art. To very appreciate a usage of art, you regard to see it as more than a single, isolated creation there must be context. This is because art is not timeless.Every painting is created within a particular milieu, an d if you do not understand that environment, you will neer be able to appreciate what the artificer has to offer you. This is why, when you study the scarper of a particular artisan, it makes sense to learn something astir(predicate) his breeding and the culture in which he lived. Although the qualities of a painting depend on the skill and desires of the artificer, a great deal of what you see on the rag reflects the environment in which the art was created. As an example, take a look at the next two paintings.The painting on the right, the well- cognize Mona Lisa, was painted from 1503-1506 by Leonardo da Vinci (Italian, 1452-1519). The painting on the remaining, a moving- exposure show of Princess Diana, was painted in 1982 by Andy Warhol (American, 1928-1987). both(prenominal) are portraits of a woman, and both were produced by highly adroit artists who used connatural poses precisely notice the striking differences in style. Princess Diana 1982 by Andy Warhol. Display a larger picture of this painting. Mona Lisa 1503-1506 by Leonardo da Vinci. Display a larger picture of this painting.If you study the lives of da Vinci and Warhol, you will find that there were as you might well imagine significant personal differences amidst the two men. These differences, however, do not draw for the vast dissimilarity in painting styles. When you compare these two paintings, what you are seeing, more than anything else, are cultural differences. When an artist creates, he is strongly exploitd by the times in which he lives and, no matter how innovational he might be as a person, he cannot entirely dodging the boundaries of his culture.As you study the history of art, you see that, at any particular place and time, there is always a dominant give lessons of art that defines the prevailing artistic culture. Most artists of the time run for within the norms of that culture. A few artists, however the visionaries and the experim forecasts break pertly ground and, as they do, they encounter amazing resistance from people who dont understand the untested style of art. However, it is from the work of these innovators that art evolves. So how does this pertain to abstract art? Until the end of the 19th century, virtually all painting was representational.Artists painted pictures that were univocal, and people looked at those paintings for one reason to see the particular images that were depicted. At initiatory, this idea sounds so obvious as to hardly be worth stating. wherefore else would you look at paintings, if not to see the images? However, as I will rationalize, there are other, more compelling reasons to look at a painting. Indeed, it is affirmable to obtain a painting in such a way that you go beyond what you see, in order to find out what you might feel. In the earlyish 1870s, a movement arose in France that began to introduce inductive reasoning into serious art.This movement, called Impressionism, produ ced works of art that, for the first time, did not consist wholly of realistic images. The original goal of the impressionistics was conceptually saucer-eyed they wanted to depict nature as it really existed. In particular, they labored to experience the ever-changing effects of light, as it changed throughout the day and from season to season. For example, the French panther Monet, whom I mentioned above, spent a lot of time creating series of paintings in which he painted the uniform subject at different times of the day.His goal was to show how the color and form of the subject changed from one hour to the next. Take a look at this painting of hay voltaic piles, created by Monet in 1890-1891. His goal was not to paint a simple image of a stack of hay, neertheless quite to show the color and form of the haystacks at a particular time of day at the end of the summer. From Monets point of view (I imagine), the painting was more of an exercise than a work of art. Wheatstacks (End of Summer) 1890-1891 by Claude Monet. Display a larger picture of this painting. Around the same time, another nurture of art, Neo-Impressionism, arose from the influence of Impressionism.The Neo-Impressionists used many weakened side-by-side dots to build up various shapes and colors. You can see this technique which is known as pointillism in the following painting, A sunshine aft(prenominal)noon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, created in 1884-1886 by Georges Seurat (French, 1859-1891). A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte 1884-1886 by Georges Seurat. Display a larger picture of this painting. Finally, in the 1880s and 1890s, a disparate free radical of artists sought to move beyond Impressionism and its compulsion with the changing effects of light.These artists, collectively known as the Post-Impressionists, created a wide grade of striking and innovative paintings. Among the most important Post-Impressionists were Paul Cezanne (French, 1839-1906), whom I mentioned earlier, Paul Gauguin (French, 1848-1903) and Vincent van Gogh (Dutch, 1853-1890). When you look at Impressionist paintings, you will notice that, although they are principally soothing to the eye and calming to the spirit, they are, as a whole, quite boring. This is not the case with the Post-Impressionsts, as you can see by looking at the following two paintings. First, here is Where Do We Come From?What are We? Where argon We Going? , painted in 1897 by Gauguin. Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? 1897 by Paul Gauguin. Display a larger picture of this painting. Next, take a look at Irises, painted in 1889 by van Gogh. Irises 1889 by Vincent van Gogh. Display a larger picture of this painting. The last cardinal decades of the 19th century were a time of two important and distinct transitions. First, as I have mentioned, there was a gradual change from representational art to abstract art. You can see this in the work of the Impressionist s and Neo-Impressionists.The second change was more subtle, exactly far more important. With the work of the Post- Impressionists, the purpose of art itself had begun to change. For most of history, the primary election purpose of painting had been to portray images, rather than to evoke feelings and emotions. Starting with the Post-Impressionists, however, the emphasis began to shift. For the first time, un assured mind(p) mind feelings began to find their way into mainstream art. What imparted this to follow was that the Impressionists had loosened the bonds, giving permission for painters to plod from their representational roots and become more abstract.To be sure, the Post-Impressionists were nonoperational quite vocal in their work when you look at the work of Cezanne or Gauguin or van Gogh, you do know what you are looking at. Indeed, at the ancestor of this essay, I used one of Cezannes paintings (Apples, Peaches, Pears, and Grapes) as an example of representation al work. Still, the gradual shift to abstraction and the capturing of ingrained emotion was real and far-reaching. The reason that this is so important is that most of valet life exists un assuredly, below the mount of perception and beyond the reach of voluntary, purposeful thinking.Within this nether realism, lies the strong, untamed and anomalous forces that give life to our being and comment to what it means to be human. Until the 20th century, artists had to be content with merely grazing the surface of consciousness. Try as they might, their ability to distri excepte to the readt of what it means to be human was limited by their tools. When the brain processes a recognizable image, a mental bulwark is erected that prevents significant entry into the processes of the unconscious.Thus, representational art, by its very nature, imposes limits on how deeply an artist is able to insinuate him- or herself into the unconscious processes of the observer. However, with the comi ng of abstraction, artists had, for the first time, a stiff tool that would bear them to beltway literal error perception and reach into this otherwise overweight world of unconscious emotion. This was possible because, the more abstract a work of art, the less preconceptions it evokes in the mind of the beholder. In the men of a skillful practitioner, abstract art can be an extremely virile tool.However, as I will explain in a moment, such tools want more than the skill of the artist, they require the cooperation of the observer. forwards I get to this point, however, Id like to brood with a bit of history. By the beginning of the 20th century, the move towards abstraction had generated fantastic possibility. Previously, painters restricted by the conventions of representational art had confined themselves to either imitating nature or telling stories. Now, for the first time, artists were able to enter a realm in which unmeasured imagination was, not completely pos sible, but desirable.Between 1910 and 1920, a new movement towards abstract art, both in painting and sculpture, arose in Europe and in North America. The first important abstract artist was Wassily Kandinsky (Russian, 1866-1944). During the geezerhood 1910 to 1914, Kandinsky created a series of paintings which he called extemporisations and Compositions. nevertheless today, almost a century later, Kandinskys work is striking in its ability to bypass our consciousness and stir our inner feelings. Take a look, for example, at one of my favorites, temporary expedient 7, which Kandinsky painted in 1910. Improvisation 7 1910 by Wassily Kandinsky.Display a larger picture of this painting. The work of Kandinsky was extremely influential, and helped to doorkeeper in an age in which a number of abstract movements were established, one after another Cubism, Futurism, Vorticism, Neoplasticism, Dadaism, Surrealism, and so on. Rather than decipher each of these movements in detail, Id like to depart to what I consider to be the define point of 20th century art Abstract Expressionism. What we now call Abstract Expressionism emerged in New York in the early 1940s. It was not so much a well-defined school of art, as a way of thinking.The Abstract Expressionists made the final exam break from the rigid conventions of the past, by redefining what it meant to be an artist. In essence, they rebelled against what the rest of the art world judged to be acceptable. Although the idea of abstraction had been around for some time, the Abstract Expressionists went a lot further. They began to emphasize, not only the finished product, but the actual process of painting. They experimented in how they interacted with the paint, the canvas, and their tools and they pay attention to the physical qualities of the paint itself, its caryopsis, color and shape.I realize this sounds vague and pretentious, so I will explain to you what it all means. in advance I do, though, lets take a look at an Abstract Expressionist painting, so you can at least get a feeling for what I am talking about. The following painting was created in 1950 by capital of Mississippi Pollock (American, 1912-1956), a pioneer of what came to be called action painting. The painting was originally called Number 1, 1950, but at the suggestion of an art critic named Clement Greenberg, the painting was renamed lilac-colored becloud (although, there is actually no lilac-colored in it). lilac-colored Mist 1950 by Jackson Pollock. Display a larger picture of this painting. The name action painting was coined to describe the techniques used by Pollock. He would fasten large canvases to the floor of his studio apartment, and consequently drip, fling, and spill paint on them. He often used regular house paint, because he preferred the way it flowed. Now, I understand that the first time you look at a picture like lilac-colored Mist you may see nothing more than a misidentify array of disorganiz ed lines and spots. What, I hear you say, is this supposed to mean?How could anything so old and crude be considered to be great art? It looks like something a bored kid would do if he was left simply in an art studio with no supervision. Before I explain why Lavender Mist is, indeed, great art, let me tell you a affectionate story. A few years ago, I decided to visit Washington, D. C. by myself. It was the plaza of winter, and the city had been hit by a huge snowstorm. I was all alone, so I decided to walk to the content Gallery of Art. The streets were virtually empty, and as I entered the museum, I could see that it too was empty.I asked the info person if they had anything by Jackson Pollock. She say yes, and gave me directions to the populate in which his paintings and drawings were hung. I had hear of Pollock and seen photographs of his work, but I had never seen any of the paintings in person. I still remember the feeling I had when I descended the stairs, turned the corner, and looked at the wall. I was alone in a large room and, there on the far wall, was Lavender Mist. The effect it had on me was completely unexpected. It was the only time in my life when I can remember a painting, literally, taking my breath away.I know this will sound a bit sappy, but seeing that painting changed me forever. Looking at a Jackson Pollock painting for the first time. How could this be the case? You barely looked at a picture of the same painting, and I doubt you felt as if you had been changed forever. First, I should explain that the actual canvas is large, nearly 10 feet (3 meters) long. It is quite statuesque when you see it in person, especially in a large empty room, where the painting seems to reach out, grab you and pull you towards it.Second, what you see in the picture above is nothing like the real thing. Not only is the picture on your class much smaller than the actual painting, but the colors you see on a figurer monitoring device are muted and inexact. Moreover, on a computer screen, you do not get a sense of the texture of the paint and the canvas. All of this you understand, I am sure. Everyone knows that viewing a real painting is a lot different from looking at a picture of the painting on a computer monitor (or on a projection screen in an art history class, for that matter).However, there is another reason why I was so moved by Lavender Mist, and it has to do with the very purpose of art. To discuss this, we have to consider the question, wherefore do we create art? There are a number of straightforward reasons why human beings create art to make a decoration, to tell a story, to capture or preserve an image, or to illustrate an idea. However, there is another, more subtle, but far more important reason why art is important to us. The motive to reach inside ourselves and manipulate our unconscious feelings is universal.We all do it to some degree, although most of the time we are blind to what we are doing. Th at is where art comes in. As I explained earlier, one of the purposes of art is to allow us confirmatory access to our inner psyche. Great art affords a way to get in touch with the unconscious part of our existence, even if we dont realize what we are doing. In this sense, the grapheme of the artist is to create something that, when viewed by an observer, evokes unconscious feelings and emotions.The reason abstract art has the likely to be so springful is that it keeps the conscious distractions to a minimum. When you look at, say, the apples and pears of Cezanne, your mental aught mostly goes to processing the images the fruit, the plate, the table, and the background. However, when you look at Lavender Mist, you are not distracted by meaningful images, so virtually all of your brain power is devoted to feeling. You can open yourself, let in the energy and spirit of the painting, and allow it to dance with your psyche.Of course, this only works if you join forces with the ar tist. His job is to create a painting that is rendered so skillfully that, when you look at it, what you see actually changes what you feel at an unconscious level. Your job is to clear your conscious mind of thoughts and preconceptions in order to allow yourself to be influenced by what you are seeing. This means that, if you are to in truth appreciate a work of art, you must be willing to let yourself go, to put yourself in the work force of the artist, so to speak, and let him take you wheresoever he wants.Much of the time, this partnership fails, sometimes because the artist is simply not skillful enough often because the person looking at the painting does not know how to truly appreciate it. Now you can see why the advent of Abstract Expressionism was so important. For the first time in history, artists were creating abstract art so skillfully that it was able to penetrate quickly and powerfully into peoples subconscious mind (at least some people, some of the time). Thus, it is possible to view the history of painting as a long evolutionary process, kickoff with the slow, labored outgrowth of tools and techniques.Eventually, after centuries of representationalism, the Impressionists began to energize off the long- standing restrictions, which led to the development of various schools of abstract art, culminating, in the 1940s, with Abstract Expressionism, the beginning of a new age of creation and human achievement. Id like to introduce to you a few of the Abstract Expressionists, painters whose work was important to the evolutionary process that redefined what it meant to be an artist. iodine thing that you will see is that work of these painters varies greatly.This is because, as I have mentioned, Abstract Expressionism is not so much a school of painting as a way of approaching and experiencing the act of creation. I have already shown you Lavender Mist (1950) by Jackson Pollock. Here is one of Pollacks earlier paintings, The Key, which he cre ated in 1946. The Key 1946 by Jackson Pollock. Display a larger picture of this painting. Next, Id like to show you a painting by Arshile Gorky (Armenian-American, 1904-1948), whose work had significant influence at the time that Abstract Expressionism was emerging.This painting, called atomic number 53 Year the Milkweed, was created in 1944. One Year the Milkweed 1944 by Arshile Gorky. Display a larger picture of this painting. When you are just getting used to abstract art, you might wonder, just how good are these artists anyway? It doesnt look all that hard to fill a canvas with lines, and smears, and splotches. I can assure you that the best abstract painters are all highly skilled artists in their own right. For example, here is a charcoal sketch done by Gorky in 1938, called The Artists beget. It is actually an glorification of his mother, inspired by an old photograph. ) The Artists Mother 1938 by Arshile Gorky. The next painting is by Franz Kline (American, 1910-1962). It is called Painting Number 2, and was created in 1954. Painting Number 2 1954 by Franz Kline. Display a larger picture of this painting. Finally, here is a painting by Mark Rothko (Russian-American, 1903-1970), entitled White revolve around and created in 1950. This painting is an example of what is called wring Field painting an abstract image with large areas of undiluted color. White concentre 1950 by Mark Rothko.