30 September 2012
what is it that makes a good abstract goo and a mediocre one mediocre? a question I have pondered often especially during art discussions (in real life).
At the moment it looks as if a good abstract comes about through a mature application of the medium used to execute it. Not necessarily a maturity that has risen from knowing how to use the medium, but a maturity of application, the very action of application. Therein lies the key, I think. This is also something that one cannot learn...nor teach. It comes of its own accord.
For example there is only one De Kooning and one Pollock etc. Trying to 'be' like these or other artists just wont cut the cake....although... taking their way of application, studying this and learning from them. Very much in a way like as if you go into their work, into their mind and 'be' their stroke. Recognizing their stroke to be everything that there is in that moment is getting in contact with the very essence of their expression.
But even this 'way' can get tricky. Because if you were to identify yourself, as a person, to be them, then your work would be tainted with mediocrity. Perhaps a large amount of people would love what you do and if ones motivation lies in what the crowd says about ones work, then this mediocrity would be overlooked to mean 'famous'.
But when there is care and genuine appreciation present, this will imbue the art work.
By all means be yourself but do not fool yourself to base your art in the category of 'self taught' or 'taught by Master' without recognizing by what and by how your art is expressed.
At the moment it looks as if a good abstract comes about through a mature application of the medium used to execute it. Not necessarily a maturity that has risen from knowing how to use the medium, but a maturity of application, the very action of application. Therein lies the key, I think. This is also something that one cannot learn...nor teach. It comes of its own accord.
For example there is only one De Kooning and one Pollock etc. Trying to 'be' like these or other artists just wont cut the cake....although... taking their way of application, studying this and learning from them. Very much in a way like as if you go into their work, into their mind and 'be' their stroke. Recognizing their stroke to be everything that there is in that moment is getting in contact with the very essence of their expression.
But even this 'way' can get tricky. Because if you were to identify yourself, as a person, to be them, then your work would be tainted with mediocrity. Perhaps a large amount of people would love what you do and if ones motivation lies in what the crowd says about ones work, then this mediocrity would be overlooked to mean 'famous'.
But when there is care and genuine appreciation present, this will imbue the art work.
By all means be yourself but do not fool yourself to base your art in the category of 'self taught' or 'taught by Master' without recognizing by what and by how your art is expressed.
Comments 3
I've just come across you and had a look at your art. I like it. Some of your art works remind me, of course, a bit of Pollock and some of Mondrian, two artists that I appreciate. I do agree with you when you say, "Trying to 'be' like these or other artists just won't cut the cake....although... taking their way of application, studying this and learning from them.", otherwise, I add, your work would turn out to be useless and limitative. As it seems you are a versatile artist.
Regards,
Maria Buemi.
Say something