Your thoughts on Realism vs Abstract Art

[xbox]

I would like to know your opinions on different kinds of art. Specifically abstract vs realism. Which one appeals to you more?

I especially like good abstract art when it looks like talent went into it. The only thing I find cool about realism is how detailed the artist gets to make the painting look real, but thats kind of it. not much talent otherwise.


and on another note for people who browse art: dude whats up with the flowering tree impasto paintings?

http://img3.etsystatic.com/il_fullxfull.316837095.jpg

Sure it may look nice, but it kind of loses originality when like EVERYONE is doing the same thing.

 

[Kuu]

To pull off realism one requires great skill in the technique of painting. To make abstract, requires little technique at all. Both, without any interesting concept or idea trying to be captured/transmitted, are boring as hell.

I consider a lot if not most of painting / "art" these days to be pretty superfluous and extremely pretentious...

I don't care so much how well it is done, technical-wise, but why?

 

[Cognisant]

I think art galleries have been left behind by digital artists as they don't know how to display or appreciate digital works, I mean traditionally art was something rare and valuable, you would display it in galleries like the treasures of a pharaoh's tomb are displayed in a museum. But digital art doesn't exist like that, it's free, endlessly available and can be edited by anyone as they see fit, indeed this editing is the entire point of collaborative works.

So now what are art galleries if not relics themselves of bygone sensibilities?

 

[Moocow]

@Cognisant I don't think digital art can replace the impact of an actual image created by hand, using physical materials. Sure, you can do large prints, but there is something sterile and mechanical about it by comparison. Having a physical and even cumbersome object bear your imagination is somehow gratifying in a way digital has never been.

@Kuu photorealism began as some kind of statement about photography and painting. I'm not sure what the statement was because it could be any number of things but the point is that our generation is not going to be impressed because like most art it was mainly relevant to its era. I don't think the ostentation of skill has ever changed or should be expected to.

I prefer realism done as photographically as possible for entirely imagined images in a naturalistic style. By naturalistic style I mean a truly believable image... no cliché, exaggerated poses or facial expressions, no gooey, hyper-romantic froth. Painting something that looks natural takes a lot of subtlety.

If it's ok with the OP, when I finish a painting I'm currently working on, I could post that with the digital draft I did beforehand to show the differences in texture, color, and overall appeal.

@xbox In regards to the OP question, I can not prefer abstract or realism on the grounds of being one or the other. The quality of a painting shows through in its design- the way colors, shapes, edges, and textures are balanced to create an appealing image. The point of pure abstraction is sometimes to experiment directly with those elements rather than a literal subject like with realism. Even a realistic painting is an abstraction though, which requires a lot from the sense of the artist to be appealing at all.

 

[Da Blob]

Picasso, the charlatan, the man who made a fortune copying the drawings of schizophrenics, did contribute one valid observation that seemingly justifies abstract art.

He said, How can painters compete with the photographers to produce realistic images, it is better perhaps to paint that which can not be captured by a camera...

 

[Moocow]

Picasso, the charlatan, the man who made a fortune copying the drawings of schizophrenics, did contribute one valid observation that seemingly justifies abstract art.

He said, How can painters compete with the photographers to produce realistic images, it is better perhaps to paint that which can not be captured by a camera...

Sources for the schizophrenics remark and the quote?

 

[Cognisant]

@Cognisant I don't think digital art will never replace the impact of an actual image created by hand, using physical materials. Sure, you can do large prints, but there is something sterile and mechanical about it by comparison. Having a physical and even cumbersome object bear your imagination is somehow gratifying in a way digital has never been.

So? I just took a dump the in the toilet, it was gratifying and very physical but I wouldn't call it art.

Okay sure if you're saying actually going to a gallery and walking around an actual physical unique piece of artwork is more engaging then viewing the same image on a computer screen, then yes I see your point, but I don't think visceral sensations are the point here, the smell and feel of painted canvas may be interesting but it's not a blowjob y'know? When I go to an art gallery I'm not there to explore sensory stimuli, they won't allow me to touch or taste the art and they frown upon me sniffing it, so all I can do is look at it and what am I looking at, not a disco ball or kaleidoscope, I'm looking at a picture, a sculpture or some like that which has been purposely made to stimulate me emotionally and intellectually.

I suppose that's why there's so many pictures and sculptures of naked people.
Again it's not a quite a blowjob, but in some ways it's better.

 

[Moocow]

So? I just took a dump the in the toilet, it was gratifying and very physical but I wouldn't call it art.

Okay sure if you're saying actually going to a gallery and walking around an actual physical unique piece of artwork is more engaging then viewing the same image on a computer screen, then yes I see your point, but I don't think visceral sensations are the point here, the smell and feel of painted canvas may be interesting but it's not a blowjob y'know? When I go to an art gallery I'm not there to explore sensory stimuli, they won't allow me to touch or taste the art and they frown upon me sniffing it, so all I can do is look at it and what am I looking at, not a disco ball or kaleidoscope, I'm looking at a picture, a sculpture or some like that which has been purposely made to stimulate me emotionally and intellectually.

I suppose that's why there's so many pictures and sculptures of naked people.

Oops I intended "ever" instead of "never" in that first sentence. Edit made.

I'm don't understand what point you are making with this post, @Cognisant. Your first statement questions "what qualifies something as art," your second point engages a strawman as I did not say or mean anything involving viscera.
If you want to compare it to blowjobs then for that matter why don't we all just shoot morphine instead of doing anything? That is also beside the point and a different debate entirely.

At least to answer your first question, I did say this once:

Something I've been thinking about... what exact reasons do people have for creating art for its own sake? I don't actually enjoy most other peoples' artwork and usually end up thinking my own is no good after a week or two, yet I'm chronically compelled to create it. Maybe it's more like taking a shit?

Although I don't stand there and stare at my shit and evaluate it for quality and effect. That happens presumably while one is taking a shit, in order to understand the condition of the digestive tract. The act of taking the shit itself is also healthy and liberating, somewhat like the creation of art. Having said that, I would not qualify your shit as art, just shit.

 

[Cognisant]

So what do you mean by "sterile and mechanical", exactly?

If it's not the absence of smell, texture or taste that you're talking about then what difference is there between a painting painted with a paint brush or painting software? Furthermore what has gratification got to do with anything, you imply the creation of art performed by the artist is for a sake in of itself but what kind of artist creates art for nobody to see? As I see it art is created for the audience and if or not the artist enjoyed making it is quite irrelevant, what matters is how effectively it provokes thoughts and feelings in audience, because if it dosen't how could we distinguish it from any other gratifying activity the artist performs in private?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't really perceive (visual) art at all under dichotomies or labels. Art is just art to me and most will be a miss, while only a few unexpected pieces being a hit.

A few art posts on INTPforum have stood out to me:
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=282656&postcount=30
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=244537&postcount=1 (this too)
http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=265704&postcount=71

 

[Moocow]

So what do you mean by "sterile and mechanical", exactly?

If it's not the absence of smell, texture or taste that you're talking about then what difference is there between a painting painted with a paint brush or painting software? Furthermore what has gratification got to do with anything, you imply the creation of art performed by the artist is for a sake in of itself but what kind of artist creates art for nobody to see? As I see it art is created for the audience and if or not the artist enjoyed making it is quite irrelevant, what matters is how effectively it provokes thoughts and feelings in audience, because if it dosen't how could we distinguish it from any other gratifying activity the artist performs in private?

The artists is his own audience and harshest critic and he is not going to be completely unlike others in his tastes. Most of the artists that I favor tend to work solely for their own tastes with little regard for the audience, it does not mean the art will not inspire others as much as the artist tries to inspire himself. Usually it's the opposite, in fact.

Let's compare some aspects of digital and oil painting:
Digital:
-Luminescent color
-Single-layer
-Pixelated
-Limited to the color spectrum of the monitor or printing ink.
-Drawn using virtual brushes and tools with perfect function.

Oil paint:
-Reflected color
-Several layers of paint,
-Texture and variation in technique and application
-Detail and texture may be unlimited
-Handwriting of the artist shows through more. With digital tools much of the artist's personal style and inner interpretation of the forms they're depicting either never shows through or is overworked with all of the filters, tools, and processing that can be done digitally.

If you think the above listed differences are insignificant, then you just don't have as discriminating of a taste for this kind of experience as some others and derogating that preference as absurd or unmerited is not really justified, although you are obviously entitled to choose what to appreciate and how.

I recommend looking at some actual paintings in person, with several styles from different artists. Your perspective is apparently that an image is an image and everything else about the experience is disregarded in the process of appreciation. That may only be true for you, but it isn't for me.

Do you think it is just as well to listen to an mp3 of a symphony as to listen to one performed in front of you?

 

[Cognisant]

And I think your lack of appreciation for a new medium makes you insular.

It's a poor craftsman blames his tools y'know.

 

[Moocow]

And I think your lack of appreciation for a new medium makes you insular.

It's a poor craftsman blames his tools y'know.

Once again a straw man, I didn't even say I do not appreciate digital art, but I do not see it as a replacement for physical forms of art.

I have to ask, are you drunk? I hope you are that or joking about your second statement, as this is not the kind of quality discussion I'd expect from you.

 

[Kuu]

This is such an old and tired debate.

I thoroughly dislike the word "art". It makes me think of public masturbation.

I like to understand the products of creativity as possessing two aspects: sensorial and intellectual. This fits quite clearly the above exchange.

While I enjoy sensorial experiences for their own qualities, I prefer intellectual works. I can respect craft, delicate, intricate technique, innovative or painstaking process. But I prefer something simple that actually makes me think, or see something in a new way. Rarely does one thing excel at both aspects.


Also the digital mediums have qualities of their own, unique, and should be recognized for them as well. Declaring their inferiority with regards to other media is just close minded.

Moar later, reality summons

 

[Da Blob]

Sources for the schizophrenics remark and the quote?

Working.... (I filed that stuff in my mind 35 years ago...)

I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.
Pablo Picasso

Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.
Pablo Picasso

Painting is a blind man's profession. He paints not what he sees, but what he feels, what he tells himself about what he has seen.
Pablo Picasso


distractions, Bah Humbug!

Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.
Pablo Picasso

Every act of creation is first an act of destruction.
Pablo Picasso

Everything you can imagine is real.
Pablo Picasso

He can who thinks he can, and he can't who thinks he can't. This is an inexorable, indisputable law.
Pablo Picasso

This is as close as I can find without an extended search...


http://web.org.uk/picasso/jung_article.html

Edit: afterthought - a surprisingly good read..
http://www.all-art.org/art_20th_century/picasso1.html

Spoiler

[bimgx=650]http://intpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1732&stc=1&d=133522394%20%206[/bimgx]

 

[kantor1003]

-Handwriting of the artist shows through more. With digital tools much of the artist's personal style and inner interpretation of the forms they're depicting either never shows through or is overworked with all of the filters, tools, and processing that can be done digitally.

Interesting observation. I've never thought too much of that with regards to painting before.

And I absolutely agree on the point that art can be entirely created for it's own sake - for the artist to express himself in whatever medium s/he prefers (even though I know many that would be disagreeing with that point), and like you I prefer artists that do exactly that. The problem is obviously that we wouldn't have heard of too many of them if no one took pleasure in exposing themselves, and there are several that have dwindled into obscurity, or never been heard of except by a few, due to them not having the need, or disliking the idea, of sharing their works - which is a shame, as some of it is, no doubt, highly intriguing works that never will be available, or go by unnoticed by the wider public.

I think that art came into being not because of "consumer" demand, but as a necessary outlet - a way of exploring themselves, expressing themselves, make their inner workings and thoughts into tangible forms - and from there it follows that art can, and most often is, created entirely for it's own sake just like knowledge is gained and pursued most often entirely for it's own sake. It's a part of the human condition.



/Glad to see you back @Da Blob /

 

[Da Blob]

Glad to be back, I missed the forum smilies and a few personages as well
:smiley_emoticons_mr

I believe we have discussed G. K. Chesterton's perspective on art, on previous occasions, but this is an except that confirms your own statement.

"To his simplicity it must seem at least odd that he could not find any trace of the beginning of any arts among any animals. That is the simplest lesson to learn in the cavern of the coloured pictures; only it is too simple to be learnt. It is the simple truth that man does differ from the brutes in kind and not in degree; and the proof of it is here; that it sounds like a truism to say that the most primitive man drew a picture of a monkey and that it sounds like a joke to say that the most intelligent monkey drew a picture of a man. Something of division and disproportion has appeared; and it is unique. Art is the signature of man."

from the chapter the Man in the Cave in the Everlasting Man

 

[xbox]

@Cognisant I don't think digital art can replace the impact of an actual image created by hand, using physical materials. Sure, you can do large prints, but there is something sterile and mechanical about it by comparison. Having a physical and even cumbersome object bear your imagination is somehow gratifying in a way digital has never been.

That is why I love art. Theres something gratfying about having a mental image on canvas whether abstract or realistic. In the OP I was more talking about which kinds of techniques or style, I didn't mean to make it sound like 'one or the other'.

Its interesting to see a variety of opinions on art. I wrongfully assumed there would be more enthusiasm about art.

 

[xbox]

This thread was not meant to be a debate, more of a discussion for people who *like art*.. You should probably take your debate somewhere else? I should have probably called this 'calling all art critics' rather than 'those who are critical of art?'

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I wrongfully assumed there would be more enthusiasm about art.

Visual images don't really get a rise out of me, even ones I really find to be "a work of art". But it is a whole other thing for music. I guess it has something to do with how sensitive you are to certain organs/stimuli, and I would have a preference for auditory art.

 

[xbox]

So what do you mean by "sterile and mechanical", exactly?

If it's not the absence of smell, texture or taste that you're talking about then what difference is there between a painting painted with a paint brush or painting software? Furthermore what has gratification got to do with anything, you imply the creation of art performed by the artist is for a sake in of itself but what kind of artist creates art for nobody to see? As I see it art is created for the audience and if or not the artist enjoyed making it is quite irrelevant, what matters is how effectively it provokes thoughts and feelings in audience, because if it dosen't how could we distinguish it from any other gratifying activity the artist performs in private?

i dont get what point youre trying to make. sounds like you are more or less ranting.. if you dont like art, thats cool. if you enjoy taking a shit, thats cool too. its not unique to hear people say 'so i can wipe my ass on some canvas and call it art'. its also not unique to hear people say 'i love art!' who cares? if you hate it so much, make your own club or something. sounds more productive than taking my thread off topic.

 

[xbox]

Visual images don't really get a rise out of me, even ones I really find to be "a work of art". But it is a whole other thing for music. I guess it has something to do with how sensitive you are to certain organs/stimuli, and I would have a preference for auditory art.

thats pretty cool, i love music too. i dont get a rise out of art, but i appreciate the creativity and color manipulation and brush work and the artists state of mind of expression in the end it sometimes looks pretty cool. you have some good song choices in the music thread. i usually like the album cover art on some metal bands..

 

[A22]

I appreciate both. I can only paint abstract.

 

[xbox]

nice.. do you have some pieces to share?

 

[Kuu]

This thread was not meant to be a debate, more of a discussion for people who *like art*.. You should probably take your debate somewhere else? I should have probably called this 'calling all art critics' rather than 'those who are critical of art?'

How can one be an art critic without being critical of art?


And no debate? Just where exactly do you think you are posting?

 

[xbox]

How can one be an art critic without being critical of art?

my phrase 'critical of art' was just a play on the words of 'art critic'.

i wanted more like a discussion about art work with people who LIKE art (but have opinions within the art world), but seems like it was taken over by a few who hate art in general. art critics don't hate art. There's a difference.

And no debate? Just where exactly do you think you are posting?

The INTP forum. Where threads are rightfully closed or split if its not going the way the moderators want it to, even when they are largely off topic. I did ask for the debate to go somewhere else. And the title is 'realism vs abstract art' not 'do you like art?'

 

[Kuu]

I wanted more like a discussion about art work with people who LIKE art (but have opinions within the art world), but seems like it was taken over by a few who hate art in general.

Hate? I just see a discussion of people about 'art' in contemporary society, what it constitutes and how relevant it is. I don't see any hating.

 

[Akuma]

-Handwriting of the artist shows through more. With digital tools much of the artist's personal style and inner interpretation of the forms they're depicting either never shows through or is overworked with all of the filters, tools, and processing that can be done digitally.

I kinda disagree with this.
Everything is purposeful, when the artist adds a filter, that is them showing their preferences and style in their art. Photshop and Sai are all tools to be manipulated as with any medium.

Also, "Limited to the color spectrum of the monitor or printing ink."
A painter is limited to their oil paints, which is much more aggravating than being limited to the light spectrum.

It just sounds like it's the "perfection" you don't like, traditional art has a much more difficult time ironing out flaws and fixing mistakes.

As for the main subject of this thread..
I appreciate the amount of skill that's involved in realism, but I prefer the creativity of abstract art. Both have precise control over their tools, control over their use of colours, how they use colours and lines as symbols (not talking about abstract expressionism, but I can appreciate the use of colours).

I can't say much about other mediums of art like sculptures, but I could never appreciate a glass cube filled with sperm.

My longest post on this forum ever.

 

[Da Blob]

The OP simply asks for preferences between two styles, not two media. Yet this being the Forum the discussion has expanded to include media and other topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(arts)

Artistic media are a means of self expression/self gratification. The word, media, is just the plural of medium, in a context of communication as an intercessory agent. Personal preferences dictate the medium of creation and the medium/media of experiencing such creation as gratification.

I have been recognized as a digital artist, yet I really just enjoy playing in photoshop, not wishing to become an artist, due to he stress involved. However, my own media are snapshots not blank canvases/screens and it seems to me that the individual medium determines whether the finished work will be "realistic' or "abstract/surreal". I do both styles.

Since this is the case, I can't help but wonder to what extent viewing gratification is also determined in actuality, not by generalized style, but by individual pieces (?)

 

[Moocow]

I kinda disagree with this.
Everything is purposeful, when the artist adds a filter, that is them showing their preferences and style in their art. Photshop and Sai are all tools to be manipulated as with any medium.

Also, "Limited to the color spectrum of the monitor or printing ink."
A painter is limited to their oil paints, which is much more aggravating than being limited to the light spectrum.

It just sounds like it's the "perfection" you don't like, traditional art has a much more difficult time ironing out flaws and fixing mistakes.

As for the main subject of this thread..
I appreciate the amount of skill that's involved in realism, but I prefer the creativity of abstract art. Both have precise control over their tools, control over their use of colours, how they use colours and lines as symbols (not talking about abstract expressionism, but I can appreciate the use of colours).

I can't say much about other medians of art like sculptures, but I could never appreciate a glass cube filled with sperm.

My longest post on this forum ever.

You might be right but I don't want to be too quick to leap to that conclusion, that it is the perfection I don't like. I have seen a lot of very good, fascinating digital art, but none of it has resonated with me the way some oil paintings have. Why that is, I can really only speculate-
Maybe this is something about me in particular, that I have learned to see beauty more quickly in the kind of technique needed to hide or employ the flaws of paint mediums. I'm not really a huge fan of photography either, by comparison, and that is definitely another "perfect" medium.