Webster defines abstract as: a.considered aside from a certain instance, b.expressing an excellent independent of the object or c. having only intrinsic form with minimum pictorial representation. Put simply; taking a subject and emphasizing its core fundamentalness. All three definitions quickly fit abstract painting in showing, telling, drawing and painting the essence of the thing without actually depicting the object itself.
So how exactly does an abstract painter arrive at an abstract design? Many stated they started with a representational motif, that the motif was something readily identifiable. They dissected the motif as we say, looking for the bare bones, ab muscles essence of the object. They expressed this essence with colorful shapes, some beautiful, some drab, and some just plain ugly.
In any type of painting the artist is making a statement. It's easy to express pretty pink flowers in a representational painting. What the abstract artist has to say must certanly be said with his/her simple means; brush marks, color and interesting shapes. Also, since color is arbitrary, color reaches the artist's whim, and may or may not be pretty and has nothing to do with the painting's success.
To create a meaningful statement with no recognizable subject is daunting. best contemporary artists It's not just a matter of simply looking and drawing. She or he must use each of their wiles to engage us in dialog using their art, being limited, or we must say, unlimited, with unrecognizable shapes and unrelated (to the object) color. The artist must interest and talk to the viewer through form and color.
A poor, wishy washy, pretty pink flower painting says, "Weak, wishy washy pretty pink flowers!" Bright, bold colors, without form and substance in a abstract painting says, "No form and no substance!" Neither painting is successful.
So..... here we stand in front of the artwork, having no comprehension of abstract art, its purpose and intention. We want to respond but we're without a clue. So, we hesitate in front of the art work, we don't understand what to express, we don't respond to the colour or design, so, we leave saying, or at the least thinking, "That artist should be nuts!" And wondering what the painting was all about. That which was its purpose? Was it good art or not?
There are some individuals who are of the opinion that a painting should be representational to be good art. And if they can not see every hair on the top and every leaf on the tree, then your art isn't good. That simply is not true. You might prefer the see every hair but that's not necessarily an indication of good art.
What guidelines do we have in judging abstract paintings merits? The guidelines that representational painters must follow are the exact same for the abstract painter. The job should have readable values, color harmony and dominance, repetition with variety in shapes, colors and lines, all that relates to good art must also be in abstract art.
A collection of wild colors and shapes does not at all times soon add up to good art in abstraction or representational art. A good abstract may be harder to accomplish than representational art as the artist is depending on his imagination and intuition to produce something meaningful and of value. (not necessarily monetary value)
In wanting to understand abstract (non-representational) art, approach it with the concept in your mind to simply appreciate what is before you. Sometimes the title can give us an idea as to what the painting is about. That helps. Then look and pay attention to how it affects you.
Does along with speak to you? Have you been lifted up or cast down by the colour? You can have some a reaction to a piece of art work, it'll move you in some manner, perhaps little, perhaps a great deal. Identify what it is. Good art, whether abstract or representational, sets a mood, tells a story, however subtle, intrigues and interests the viewer, and therefore, each painting must be appreciated by itself merits.