Replies

What I do with some students who think like this is to suggest that they create an abstract painting (if it's so simple). Usually they find that the layering of color, composition and freedom of line is not so easy as it looks. (If you like what you do, take a picture and post if for me!)

Hmmm. I might take you up on that, since I pretty much concur with John O's comments. But for the moment, how about comparing a non-abstract work with a Kandinsky you posted?

Note that my rose pic is done with colored pencil and pen & ink, not paint, which would require more skill to do effectively. And I will freely acknowledge that the subject matter is both trite and pedestrian. Great art, it ain't.

However, I would argue that it is *better* art than the Kandinsky. And not just better, but objectively, measurably better. Cliche' that it is, at least my picture actually bears some resemblance to physical reality. And as such, my artistic skill can be judged by seeing how accurately I can represent the subject; a critical eye can point out the flaws, e.g., there should be darker shadows under the petals to show realistic lighting. The Kandinsky, on the other hand, makes no serious attempt to look like anything, so it eludes the application of such standards. Paint can be smeared on a canvas and called great art, because it is impossible to identify any flaws -- since there's nothing really there in the first place. It is valued because there are no standards for it to meet.

I am not ashamed to show people my picture. But if I somehow produced the other one, I'd burn it before anybody got a glimpse.

Reply to post 24. Too much to quote here.

Your rose is fine and reproduces well online. Yes, it is a bit "trite and pedestrian." And that's exactly what the more adventurous artists react against.

Now, Kandinsky is at a concert in this work. Can you see a musical instrument in this? I can. (Hint: it's big and black.) On the left are impressions of people: the audience, the other musicians, it doesn't matter. What is neat is how the rounded arcs could represent their heads, their chairs or even the melodic line (if you can say that about Schoenberg's music....see the clip on my answer to John O.) I like abstract art because the content can work on those different levels.

And Kandinsky is searching for new kinds of expression: new, brighter uses of color, freer line with out outlines, flat space. Some of the colors could be said to clash; so do the sounds in Schoenberg's music.

I love teaching this in an interdisciplinary class, where the hands-on connection with students is a bit better than on the internet.

BTW, I didn't "get" this stuff right away. It took some reading, looking and listening. Now I love it. Different art for different folks, eh?

And I will freely acknowledge that the subject matter is both trite and pedestrian. Great art, it ain't.

I disagree so very strongly with the bolded portion of your statement. Your rose is the best looking thing on this entire thread. Great art takes you past the image to experience more of life. I can almost smell your rose. That is great art. Of course the hoity-toity set will downplay it because it actually looks like a rose.