Lets look at some of the most famous abstract artists. Jackson Pollock (in the picture) just threw paint on a canvas and people pay millions for it. Picasso, while world renowned, was in actuality a crappy artist. Walk into any elementary school art class and you'll see a dozen Picassos. Those who can't paint realism, tend to lean toward abstract art because they don't have to be very good. It takes exceptional skill to paint very realistic images. Compare Picasso to Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Kinkade, etc
Art in general is very selective and mostly defined as the use of imagination and skill by many primary sources. Entirely abstract art was just an experiment to develop a new way of art basically and should not be considered legit art because it is new and to complex to understand by the general mass.
Abstract art is more defined on how an individuals brain works towards primarily exaggeration and other unifying framework on a piece, that is why it is complicated for others to understand their interpretations and use of material.
Akk you have to do is splatter some paint on a canvas or draw some random shapes. There's not hard work involved, and yet Jackson Pollock, who was famous for throwing paint on a canvas, was more famous than artists like Gainsborough and Van Dyck, who actually spent years working hard on making nice, realitic portraits. How fair is that?
When I look at abstract art, I can definitely see something beautiful, sure, but to say it is the foundation of art, that it is what REAL art is, and then sell those paintings for thousands or millions of dollars while artists with real talent make little to no money off their work, I think that is not only bad art, but it is trickery. Stop forcing the public to believe abstract art is real art.
It feels like a cheap money making scheme for people who can't draw. They give us art that looks like it was made by a ten year old, its no different. They could do a black line along a canvas and say it represents sin, no it doesn't! Its a black line on a page! They say art is for interpretation, but truthfully to me, abstract looks like it took five minutes to make. Interpretations of physical things are interesting! They're not random squiggles on a page, they're something that is, or was, there and giving it more excitement. Bunch of colours splattered on a page isn't art, its doodles. Basically, abstract art is for people who don't have the skill to do proper paintings. Is what I believe.
It may seem nice- but to whom..? The non-artists. Who do not understand about the complexities of life we see, the underlying world we live in. A few nice colors may look good to the normal public, but in reality it is near the skill of a doodle... Granted though, some abstract art may have potential, but that potential is left unexplored and the artist bounds themselves to abstract only.
People say that abstract art is good because apparently they have meaning to the artwork presented but it really is just something that a two year old would find pretty. For instance there could be random colors on a canvas and everyone will be asking for them to essentially take their money but if a person makes a beautiful piece of art they will have no money it's like Atari 2600 games colors on a screen meaning to be something but ends up as blocks
I do recognize that abstract artists have at some point in their development, demonstrated some level of skill at representational drawing or painting. But these works (just went to see a collection of "works" by Cy Twombly), not withstanding the fact that some are at least pleasing to the eye, are just confusing messes of paint and other artifacts. I added the word "confusing" only because we are meant to believe that they represent depth, skill, meaning (or semantics) and social relevance. Hooey!
First, my opinion isn't necessarily that it's an excuse to be a lazy artist, but that, while visually appealing, it doesn't require nearly as much time or effort as more classical and realistic pieces.
Secondly, I think people are misunderstanding the question. The question is whether or not the art is lazy, not whether or not it has more or less meaning. Personally, I believe the art lacks the effort and attention-to-detail that more detailed/realistic/classical art pieces require to create. While abstract art may not necessarily be random splashes of paint, it doesn't require nearly as much effort and should not be as reverred as the great pieces like those of Rembrandt and Da Vinci and Michaelangelo, etc.
However, if we were to address the "meaning" behind some of these, the thing with abstract art is that it really doesn't have any meaning. Sure, I suppose the meaning if left up to the observer, but that's simply lazy on the artist's part. Every piece, I believe, should require the full heart and effort of the artist. The whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" mentality may seem "creative!" and "different!" but it is indeed lazy, as hipster as it may seem.
This elephant is better than any abstract artist that I have ever seen in my life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCvLIdXS8U and people like picasso just slap paint on a canvass and hey presto 1million pounds
the real key to abstract art is, a to have your art skills that of a 1 year old and, b have no actuall skill in anything else to have to resort to such a miserable excuse for art
Art is art. Of course it would have helped to have defined art in this instance as visual art. Someone might be amazing at music but terrible at drawing. Are they a bad artist.??
Is all abstract art the same? Are not some abstract art pieces more visually pleasing or containing more meaning than others? I'd answer yes to both
First, I must point out a possible misconception that might occur when considering this question, concerning the three types of art:
Representational - Shows the subject as it would appear in real life. Noted by easily recognizable subjects. This would extend as far as Van Gogh's post-impressionist style.
Abstract - Shows a subject, but does so in a non-conventional way. A good example would be cubism, I suggest looking at some cubism paintings if you want a good example of abstract art. If you're familiar with the work of Matisse, he has made many good examples of abstract art.
Non-objective - Does not have any subject from reality, and only exists to be visually stimulating. This includes the Jackson Pollock painting that is mentioned. The creativity in these paintings lies in the medium and the originality of the work - sure, you could do that too, probably, but it wouldn't be original.
Art does not have to have a clearly visible subject to be art, and it is arguable that some abstract painting styles such as cubism are more challenging than realism.
I am an artist, i can do photo realism, I can do impressionism and cubism, I can do ceramics and sculpture, I can do abstracts and non-objective pieces. By far the most mentally struggling pieces I do are abstracts and non-objective. People outside of the art world say things like "I can do that, and so that isn't art", IF YOU THINK YOU CAN DO IT, TRY IT. I am also an art teacher, I have many immature and ignorant students who sound like many of people here who say "that isn't art, I could even do that" when looking at a painting of Jackson Pollock. I have them try, and then I have them clean up once they realize that it is way more difficult than they thought it was.
Seriously, the only excuse anyone AGAINST Abstract Art can ever come up with is anything between "my X year old [relative] could do it/better", "they can't draw/paint so they do Abstract Art", "it has no meaning" and "it looks decorative. It's been done so much".
To those stating that they or their kids could do better, tell me, why haven't you then? Why are you currently not rolling in trillions of dollars from the sales of your beautiful Abstract Art? Oh that's right, because you CAN'T do better. So your precious little son likes to dip his fingers into paint that YOU bought for HIM, on paper that YOU put IN FRONT of him and scribble some pretty doodles, presumably because that is literally all he can do given his development. Please tell me how is that the same as a person who makes the cognitive decision to use specific surface, chooses his colours for a certain reason and then CHOOSES to draw a scribble because that's what he WANTS to draw, as opposed to it being the only thing he can draw.
The "they can't draw" argument - you'd be surprised how many artists actually can draw realistic imagery but choose not to.
"It has no meaning" - oh, and the portrait of that one fat rich guy from the 16th century does? What's the meaning, that he was rich so he commissioned some starving artist to paint his mug because he's a narcissist who likes to look at his face first thing in the morning? Or how about those landscapes and flowers then? What's the meaning in those? That "they're pretty"? Colour can be pretty. Surface can be pretty. Texture can be pretty. Mix of geometric shapes can be pretty. Furthermore, where does it say that any art should have meaning in the first place? All art has to do is incite some sort of feeling in you for it to be art - even if it's dislike.
"It looks decorative" - Not any less decorative than your average landscape. How does that random ship on random stormy sea relate to you? Or how about that forest with the trees that you don't even know the name of? Or those mountains from that country you've no clue about? Admit it, you bought it because you wanted to put something on your bathroom wall.
"It's been done before" - Yeah, and those seascapes and biblical scenes haven't been done before, right? Or portraits?
Saying Abstract Art is bad because it HAS THE APPEARANCE of "not taking much skill" to do is stupid. You're attempting to confine ALL art to the same criteria - that if it's not realistic, it's bad. That's like saying that you're not a true athlete unless you're 6'2 and weigh over 180 pounds, despite the fact athletes come in different shapes and sizes.
Abstract art is noting to do with having a skill to paint realistically well or not, case i point Picasso
and many more that could do it all but did mostley abstract. It is harder to create a good abstract then a realastic painting. Most people that say they dont like abstract just dont get it !!
F*** art this and artist that. If you can get you're imagination onto some form of medium, well done. That is a skill. You deserve credit. If someone else likes looking at you're pictures or whatever than bonus. Make some money while you're at it. Just make something you like unless you want to make a ton of money ripping of
Abstract tends to mean something much deeper than what you first see. It takes plenty of talent and hard work. There is something different about this form of art as well. There is the possibility of taking different forms in the eye of the beholder. Many things are forms of art without you thinking they are. So no it is not an excuse to be a bad artist, it is an excuse to be a wonderful artist.
Art is an expression of vision. Accuracy does not equal artistic ability, because art is not a science. Nothing has to be accurate; nothing has to be anything. Art is meant to be free from these social norms - that's why so many people find comfort and solace in it. Part of what makes abstract art appealing is the fact that there is mystery behind it, there is a vision to be found, and everyone can take something different from it. While a bowl of fruit can be and often is beautiful, there is not much room for interpretation.
Art can be a way to express your feelings visually which is what most abstract artists tend to do with their art. I can see how some pieces of art might look as if no creativity or skill was involved but other pieces of abstract art require a lot of skill and creativity to produce. At the end of the day art is whatever you want it to be and if somehow you can relate to abstract pieces then great, if you can't well you should try and look into the meaning of the piece more than the how it looks.
Some "abstract" art takes great skill, while others may seem elementary. You can't paint art with such a broad stroke! Art and it's relevance is up to the viewer. There are beautiful photos and graphic arts that people could say just as easily aren't art. Who am I to tell you what's right