Talk:Abstract art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start Class: This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Moral, Ethical, and Political Implications

I tried to add the following fact:

Abstract art has the advantage that it is engages the young in an activity completely devoid of political, ethical, or moral context.[citation needed] Says who?

It was removed in record time - less than a minute. I think that it is very important that artists realize that abstract art is the only kind of painting, since the beginning of painting, that does not contain political, ethical, or moral content. How can this fact be included in this article? How should this be worded to satisfy everyone?

Certainly any movement will have its supporters and detractors. It is less than complete to disallow a full disclosure of the main mention of or arguments of these movements and critics. I notice below in the discussion that a link to the art renewal movement has been disallowed. It seems to me that by the article violates NPOV.

I was set to revert it, but Modernist beat me to it. It is a non-sequitur ('has the advantage' is also POV), and of little use without a reference. If you can provide a good source, and add it in the right context, please try again. Also, remember to sign your posts. JNW 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
PURE NONSENSE! You clearly have a lot to learn about abstract art. Give me a break! Everything and I mean everything has moral, ethical and political content and meaning. If you do not understand this, and the spiritual, and metaphysical roots of abstract art - then you have no business writing about it. I suggest you learn something about it, read a book, read Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Gertrude Stein, Rosalind Krauss, Lucy Lippard, Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, - thats why I reverted your comment. Learn about aesthetics, energy, the meaning of color, beauty, balance, surface, touch, subtlety, power, nature, weather, emotion, - give me a break. Modernist 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why I suggest the necessity of a reference, which one presumes will not be forthcoming. JNW 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about the misapprehension that abstraction is devoid of content, I just came across the following quote by Rothko:

"I’m not an abstractionist. I’m not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I’m interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on".[1] JNW 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Jacks

Joe Jacks is an American Abstract expressionist who used purely abstract techniques and i'd like him to be included in that list. If anything, he was involved in the scene at a more formative time than even Pollock was. His reference will improve this article and knowledge of him. He is under the wikipedia banner of abstract artists also. His fame shouldn't decide his inclusion, people longing on to wikipedia and looking into abstract art will get to know about another artist from the formative period of it's New York birth. It improves the article. Please comment if you object to his inclusion, don't just take it down. Thanks guys Stuedgar 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)stuedgar

Come on: it's not about how good an artist is or how much they mean to you: it's about historical relevance when writing about history. Joe Jacks is minor at best and as of now doesn't even qualify for a footnote in a history book. If you want to bring up awareness of him and his work, then publish some articles in major journals and magazines and push to get shows of his work. The hyperbolic comments like "more formative time than even Pollock" dissolve any credibility of your commentary.Dankany (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] abstract art

I'm trying to add an external link to the Art Renewal Center about abstract art. Someone keeps removing it?


[edit] Direction of Page

How can we have Freshacconi removed from participating? This is clearly an abuse and is making the Wikipedia project fail. Freshacconi's points are poor and contrary to fundamental art historical scholarship. It's disgusting.74.75.112.199 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I find that many of the definitions brought up in this article are at odds with each other - including the first line. Abstract art has as its base; abstraction. Abstraction isn't necessarily non-representation. Non-representation and abstraction are not necessarily in the same bed together. While people like Kandinsky and Mondrian did often engage in what we can mostly agree on as stuff that does not represent anything, they also developed much of their work around observation of the natural world. The work they created from these observations certainly doesn't fall under the Thomas Kinkade mandate of representation - but - it does represent something.

I think what this article is doing is mixing up definitions of Non-Objective art and Abstract Art. In most art history and/or terminology books - these two forms of art are distinct and separate from each other.

For the reader above - I'm sure the ARC link continues to be removed because the ARC proposes to limit our knowledge of art instead of expanding it. 74.136.9.70 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know about these guys. Very illuminating - talk about false polarities - and their website does read a lot like New Age kookiness applied to Fine Art - viz, there is a Grand Conspiracy suppressing the (visual) Truth. The funny thing is that I have recently noticed that an awful lot of stuff by their idol, William-Adolphe Bouguereau is used on Wikipedia - in particular as illustrations for articles on mythology. Probably just an accident, but could be a systematic tendency. Tarquin Binary 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't representation abstraction? No matter how accurately something represents another thing is it ever a perfect representation of that thing? No. Therefore it is an abstraction of what it is representing. Bus stop 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsence typing

Someone has typed partially random text into this article. If this happens again, or has happened in the past I would suggest Semi-protection of this page. I think it may be vunrerble due to the topic. Ultra two 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the poorest art pages on Wikipedia: to begin, it's wrong. Abstraction isn't simply the same thing as art that doesn't represent legible objects, so it's wrong to say that abstract art has been produced for forever in every single culture. Moreover, even when one tries to post about abstraction as aspect of Western culture, it gets taken down by a person - Freshacconci - who has no idea what she's talking about.

It would be nice if this could actually be a democratic page rather than an ignorant person's vanity page. It's not about you, Freshacconci. It's about abstract art.Dankany (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more info maybe?

Just wanted to say this needs alot more info. I'm trying to learn about Abstract Art for art college and i got only the minimum here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.110.108 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is really a general-level encyclopedia. The information is often great for basic research, but for college-level research you should be digging a bit deeper (i.e. books and academic journals). Having said that, this particular article does need a great deal of work and could use some sources. That way, people coming here can get the basic info and then have a list of references to turn to. I'll make a note of this on the article (I never actually noticed that this article had almost no references). Thanks for the wake-up. freshacconcispeaktome 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Citing another wikipedia article is not helpful. That's kind of like citing your friend who agrees with you who doesn't have any evidence either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.68.218 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I am moving part of the History section here to the talk page for further discussion because it does not discuss history.

Generally, the term "abstract art" is used in a discussion of the development of the representational fine arts in Western culture - specifically when the primacy of the represented object was transcended to the point where the work of art was no longer legible as an iconic reference to another object but was still legible as a work in its own medium: e.g., a painting is seen as a painting but not a painting of something other than itself.

The term is intermingled with other terms such as "non-objective" and "non-representation." The common usage of any of these terms refers to works of art - mostly painting and sculpture - that do not depict a visual object.

The most common understanding of abstract art is as a phenomenon of 20th century. fine art in the Western culture. By definition, art does not exist without a cultural context. (see Gardner's Art Through the Ages, Clement Greenberg's collected writings.)

Also, the first paragraph is incomprehensible. Nevertheless, this information could be useful in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking and other nonsense

Instead of adding material and in the process losing valuable material - several times now; by User:Paula clare please post your intended changes here and let someone who better knows how to edit to make the change/ provided other editors concur...Modernist (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is from User: Paula clare. I have been trying to retrieve the material from the version 3 March 2006. After this a good reference list was deleted and many vandals disrupted what was the basis of a serious presentation on Abstract art. I have just written a well researched piece for a first paragraph for the History section with added references and had it removed immediately. Wikipedia is an open site where people make contributions on the basis of personal integrity and mutual respect. What a pity it is being taken over by big egos! Paula clare 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)paula clare (talk)

Paula clare, please respect the good faith of other editors. If you show some patience and try to understand the process, the article will be improved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that WP:AGF is important. I think everyone is trying to improve the article, lets discuss any further changes before making them. Here is a diff to the page on March 2 2006 [2] (there is no March 3, 2006) I see very similar text, three refs and the current page has better imagery to say the least, as well as a better see also section, and a similar template and the current version looks like a more succinct beginning to me, Thank you. Modernist (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • This is a contribution from paula clare to help towards improving the WikiProject visual arts article. I have read through the contributions since 2003 when the article on abstract art was started and gathered the points which had been lost in editing and vandalism. The references at the end of my article are just some of the ones I have used and more are still to be added.

Abstract art Abstract art uses shapes, colours and marks to create a composition which exists independently from visual references to the world. Western art had been, from the renaissance to the middle of the 19th century, underpinned by the logic of perspective and an attempt to reproduce an illusion of visible reality. The arts of cultures other than the European had become accessible, and showed alternative ways for the artist to describe visual experience (ref here to Gaugin, Van Gogh). By the end of the century artists, poets writers and musicians felt a need to create 'a new kind of art', to take account of the fundamental changes taking place in technology, science and philosophy. The sources from which individual artists drew their theoretical arguments were diverse, and reflected the social and intellectual turmoil in all areas of Western culture at the time.

Abstraction in early art and many cultures Much of the art of early peoples ; signs and marks on pottery, textiles and inscriptions and painting on rock; were simple geometric and linear forms which might have had a symbolic or decorative purpose. (illustration here of early abstract signs). It is at this level of visual rather than literary meaning that abstract art communicates. One can enjoy the beauty of Chinese calligraphy or Islamic script, for example, without being able to read it.

The development of abstraction Early intimations of a new art were made by James McNeill Whistler, who, in his painting 'Nocturne in Black and Gold: the falling rocket' (1872) was consciously placing greater emphasis on visual sensation than the depiction of objects. By the turn of the century cultural connections between artists of the major European and American cities were extremely active as they strove to create an art form equal to the high aspirations of Modernism. Ideas were able to cross-fertilise by means of artist's books, exhibitions and manifestos so that many sources were open to experimentation and discussion, forming a basis for a diversity of modes of abstraction.The following extract from 'The World Backwards', gives some impression of the inter-connectedness of culture at that time:

'(David)Burliuk's knowledge of modern art movements must have been extremely up-to-date, for the second Knave of Diamonds exhibition, held in January 1912 included not only paintings sent from Munich, but also from members of the German Brucke group, while from Paris came work by Robert Delaunay, Henri Matisse and Fernand Leger, as well as Picasso. During the spring Burliuk gave two lectures on cubism and planned a polemical publication, which the Knave of Diamonds was to finance. He went abroad in May and came back determined to rival the almanac Der Blaue Reiter (Kandinsky)which had emerged from the printers while he was in Germany.'

The many 'modes' of abstract art

Music Music provides an example of an art form usind abstract elements of sound and divisions of time. Wassily Kandinsly, a musician himself, was inspired by the possibility thet associative colour. expressive marks and shapes could in the same way 'resound in the soul'.(Concerning the Spiritual in Art, 1912). This idea had been put forward by Charles Baudelaire, that all our senses respond to various stimuli but the senses are connected at a deeper aesthetic/spiritual level.

The spiritual dimension Closely related to this is the notion that art can transcend the mundane, reaching a higher spiritual plane through geometry, mathematically derived proportions and symbolic colour. The Theosophical Society founded by Madame Blavatsky and others as a universal religion rediscovered the ancient wisdom in the sacred books of Buddism, Hinduism and Christianity Mondrian and Kandinsky were adherents to this particular avenue of investigation.

Cezannes questioning of visual conventions Cubism, Braque, Picasso, Leger the machine Malevich etc (this still needs writing)

Constructivism A good paragraph 6 March 2006 could be added here covering period from Constructivism and brings abstraction up to the present.

References: Alfred H Barr, Cubism and Abstract art, catalogue of the exhibition, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1936 Johannes Itten, The Elements of Colour, Van N R K S Malevich, Essays on Art, ed Troels Anderson, 2 vols, London, 1968paula clarepaula clareC 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Paula clare wrote:

Closely related to this is the notion that art can transcend the mundane, reaching a higher spiritual plane through geometry, mathematically derived proportions and symbolic colour. The Theosophical Society founded by Madame Blavatsky and others as a universal religion rediscovered the ancient wisdom in the sacred books of Buddism, Hinduism and Christianity Mondrian and Kandinsky were adherents to this particular avenue of investigation.

1. The Theosophical Society was widely popular at that time. There were many artists, writers and musicians who were members ([3]), but not all of the artists had an interest in abstraction -- so it is difficult to see a correlation.
2. Not everyone would agree that Blavatsky had "rediscovered the ancient wisdom", or that she actually understood much about Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity. That might be better left to the article about her, and not dragged in here.
3, I always thought that Raphael and Botticelli (naming just two) did a good job of "transcending the mundane" without the benefit of abstraction. I would rather abstract art was presented as a different approach to art, and not as a superior approach to art. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Paula clare in answer to User:Malcolm Schosha

I have written a nearly complete article (see next writing above) on abstract art in an attempt to give a comprehensive account of the subject, as the existing one is vague and lacks any well informed introduction and references to the subject . I would welcome some constructive comments on the whole piece of writing rather than splitting hairs on minor details. Refering to your numbered notes:

1. I have not said that all the artists interested in the Theosphical Society were abstract artists. The artists who were in the process of creating abstract art, Kandinski and Mondrian and others saw theosophy, and the drawings of theosophists such as Rudolph Steiner, Charles W Leadbeater and Annie Bessant as a possible way of expressing spiritual thought and experience.This is not my view: it is the written intention of the artists themselves (Concerning the Spiritual in Art, Kandinsky) and (Abstract Art, Mel Gooding, Tate Gallery, London, 2001)
2 Theosophist Society is cited because it is absolutely central to an understanding of this strand in the development of abstract art. It has not been 'dragged in' as an incidental comment as you suggest.(The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting 1890-1985,Los Angeles County Museum of Modern Art, 1986) 'In the late nineteenth century , 'theosophy' became associated with the doctrines of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society. She drew on Budhist and Hindu philosophy and fragments from the Western esoteric tradition especially neo-platonism'. from Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000
3 Nothing in what I have written suggests that I or anyone else thinks abstract art is superior to figurative art or to the great art of the past.At the beginning of the 20th century , however, artists did feel that the methods, principles, philosophy underlying the art of the past were inadequate to express what they wanted to express i.e. the new ideas. That is what revolutions do. We would never have any change if we did not break away from earlier structures of thought.This does not in any way diminish the greatness of earlier painters. 'transcending the mundane' is what the abstract artists believed and said they were doing.It is very likely that Raphael and Botticelli felt they were doing the same. I believe they were! Paula clare|paula clare]]paula clare (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The quote you give from the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says Blavatsky drew on those traditions, not that she understood them or correctly represented them. This is not the place to introduce fringe ideas about Theosophical Society influence in the arts. There is nothing in the writings of Blavatsky, Steiner, Alice Bailey, etc. that encouraged artists to move toward abstraction; and Nicholas Roerich, an artists who was certainly more profoundly influenced by Blavatsky than was Kandinski, never showed the slightest interest in abstraction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


Malcolm Schosha, 1. Your argument is illogical. Kandinsky was certainly influenced by the ideas of The Theosophical Society and he interpreted these ideas in a paticular way, i.e. towards abstract forms. As you say, another artist interpreted them another way.This does not negate Kandinsky's source of inspiration. 2. By what authority do you doubt that Blavatsky, Steiner and the other theosophists understood the philosophies of the ancient books? Please give academically sound references to support this assertion. 3. If you can get the book 'The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890-1985', you can read about the subject in more detail, but here is an extract: ' It does so happen that we do know a little about the nature of the training undertaken by Kandinsky during the years preceding the breakthrough to abstraction. For example, in 'On the Spiritual in Art' (1912) he praised the paths of inner consciousness that were made known in the West by the Theosophical Society. His preoccupation with meditation and spiritual training can also be followed in the annotations and marginal comments he made in the occult publications in his library....all to be supplementad with 'the teachings of Bhagavad-Gita, the Gospels of St John, Thomas a Kempis'. paula clare (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to establish a correlation between Theosophical Society membership and abstraction, which I consider unlikely. Kandinsky being influenced by Theosophical Society concepts does not establish that actually caused him to turn to abstraction. However, if you can show respected published sources to support it, a statement to that effect could be added about Kandinsky (including the source)....but it gives no basis for re-writing the whole article. In Wikipedia everything must be based on respected published sources. It is not what you think, or I think; but verifiable sources. If you have a theory about the origins of abstract art that you want to reach the public, you should publish it -- but do not try to publish your original research on Wikipedia. In this, article, like all Wikipedia articles, the actual writing is based on a balance between all the editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the book 'Concerning the Spiritual in Art' by Wassily Kandinsky'(1912), a respected published source? If so I suggest you read it. You seem to have got rather obsessed with this particular section.I have not written the article because of this point only. It is to be a comprehensive account of many aspects of abstract art , its many strands, influences, terms, history. I would have thought that you would have noticed that it is much in need of re-writing. Come on! it's much too interesting to keep on grumbling and picking holes! Why not some cooperation and constructive discussion towards a better article; rather than negation and hostility.paula clare (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read Kandinsky's book. It is usable as a source, but since it is a primary source, another (scholarly) source would also be needed that supports your point: WP:VERIFY (By the way, the editing process goes better if you do not insult other editors with accusations, such as calling me "illogical" or accusations of "negation and hostility". No article this important is going to get written by just one editor.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you took the word 'illogical' as an insult. I said that your '(particular) argument was illogical', not that you were illogical. In my entry, above, 14.37 10 May 2008, I provided a scholarly source ; it is the catalogue to the exhibition, 'The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890 - 1985', which opened at Los Angeles County Museum of Art in November 1986. The catalogue contains fourteen scholarly essays by art historians such as Maurice Tuchman and John E Bowlt. It would be great to have some comments about other sections of the essay. paula clare (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the catalog could be a good source.
I was not offended, and do not get offended easily. Also, I respect the fact that people often get passionate about subjects that are important to them. But, taken all around, editing is easier if the intelligence and good faith of others is assumed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another opinion

Abstract art may make very prominent references to real objects... eg. the anthropomorphic forms of Alberto Giacometti or biomorphic artworks. This needs to be reflected in the abstract art article, especially in the intro/definition.

I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed by the unsigned comment above. Modernist (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I agree the article needs intelligent, good and verified text. The Kandinsky book is a great source as is the LA County catalog...A few years ago Hilton Kramer wrote an essay and gave several lectures concerning the influence of Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky, and P.D. Ouspensky on the early Geometric abstractionists, Piet Mondrian, Wassily Kandinsky and the early days of Modernism and abstraction in the 20th century. I spoke with him briefly about Georges Gurdjieff also. However the influence on Mondrian and Kandinsky and the other artists is essentially marginal, as really the aesthetics of painting, the basic politic of the art makes itself felt and comes through irregardless of the initial impulse or rationale. Please be mindful of WP:AGF and avoid copyright violations regarding text from other sources. I think this can be a better article. Although the Geometric abstractionists and Russian Constructivists weren't the only ones in the mix, clearly the roots of 20th century abstraction is deeply connected to Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, via Fauvism, Cubism, Orphism and even Dada and Surrealism. What is interesting is the changing definition of the word itself as the 20th century played out...Modernist (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)