Since my last post, I have received a comment which encourages me to think that I have "followers" who provide intelligent and constructive critiques which is exactly what I want. In the last post, I spoke of my diptych painting as non-objective and then proceeded to give it a very descriptive title. The comment was as follows: "If the end result is to be non-objective, then you cannot give it a title that points to a recognizable object or objects. If you were thinking “sea” or “waves” while painting and you choose to name it thus, then it is an abstract." Very well put and so true!
What's in a name???I like this very all-encompassing definition - abstraction indicates a departure from reality in depiction of
imagery in art. Abstraction exists along a continuum; abstract art can formally
refer to compositions that are derived (or abstracted) from a figurative or
other natural source. It also can refer to non-representational art and
non-objective art that has no derivation from figures or objects.
This discussion points to the importance of knowing what your objective (forgive the choice of word) is before you begin to paint and to reflect on the impact of the title, if you choose to use one. Titles of course are another whole topic for another post.
To add clarity to the concept of "non-objective", here is a very clear and colourful example from Kadinsky:
 |
Yellow Red and Blue 1925
|
 |
| Circus 7 |
Another example of non-objective painting by the painter and author of the comment - Tony Cook.
No comments:
Post a Comment