Abstract Art - why talk about it if you don't get it.

[i-need-a-martini]

I volunteer at a regional gallery and get to meet some wonderful, weird and wacky people.

But the ones that get up my goat are the ones who say "That looks like something a 5 year old would do." and expect me to agree with them.

And whilst we have a lot of community exhibitions that are amateurish enough (so perhaps the comment may be fair enough), the comment is usually reserved for iconic artists in major travelling exhibitions who are extremely well known.

Does anyone here like abstract art? And if you really hate it, why?

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

I would like to add that the Duchamp work is over a 100 years old.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@cosmosgrove wrote:

I've never seen Blue Poles but it's on the bucket list as is getting to see the Archibald entries one year in the flesh

---

Well worth the visit cosmo. Ignore anyone that says otherwise.

It's important on so many levels - because of the artist, his art and also because of its place in Australian art history. Go with an open mind and lots of knowledge. Take a gallery tour and listen to what others in the know have to say about it.

You will be mesmerised and delighted when you finally see it. 

[gleee58]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@cosmosgrove wrote:

I've never seen Blue Poles but it's on the bucket list as is getting to see the Archibald entries one year in the flesh

---

Well worth the visit cosmo. Ignore anyone that says otherwise.

It's important on so many levels - because of the artist, his art and also because of its place in Australian art history. Go with an open mind and lots of knowledge. Take a gallery tour and listen to what others in the know have to say about it.

You will be mesmerised and delighted when you finally see it. 

---

It certainly is mesmerising and worth the visit.  

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@cosmosgrove wrote:

I've never seen Blue Poles but it's on the bucket list as is getting to see the Archibald entries one year in the flesh

---

Well worth the visit cosmo. Ignore anyone that says otherwise.

It's important on so many levels - because of the artist, his art and also because of its place in Australian art history. Go with an open mind and lots of knowledge. Take a gallery tour and listen to what others in the know have to say about it.

You will be mesmerised and delighted when you finally see it. 

---

It certainly is mesmerising and worth the visit.  

---

as distinct from works by Glover, Streeton, Roberts, Withers, Gueard, McCubbin, Conder - everyone knows they are all rubbish - and it would take a specialy trained eye to work out what they are about and what the artist meant to convey.

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

Totally agree- if you can cosmo, go see it and sit in front of it...and take your time..its breathtaking and expansive..

[gleee58]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@cosmosgrove wrote:

I've never seen Blue Poles but it's on the bucket list as is getting to see the Archibald entries one year in the flesh

---

Well worth the visit cosmo. Ignore anyone that says otherwise.

It's important on so many levels - because of the artist, his art and also because of its place in Australian art history. Go with an open mind and lots of knowledge. Take a gallery tour and listen to what others in the know have to say about it.

You will be mesmerised and delighted when you finally see it. 

---

It certainly is mesmerising and worth the visit.  

---

as distinct from works by Glover, Streeton, Roberts, Withers, Gueard, McCubbin, Conder - everyone knows they are all rubbish - and it would take a specialy trained eye to work out what they are about and what the artist meant to convey.

---

That is your comparison.  It certainly doesn't reflect anything that has been said in this thread.

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

Do you mean Von Guerard?

You seem to be referring to artists from the Heidelberg school?

They are extraordinary artists too. I like them very much and would recommend anyone interested in painting and landscape to check them out. They deserve attention too.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

as distinct from works by Glover, Streeton, Roberts, Withers, Gueard, McCubbin, Conder - everyone knows they are all rubbish - and it would take a specialy trained eye to work out what they are about and what the artist meant to convey.

---

You can scoff but I think you will find that many painting by the artists you have mentioned are not entirely what they seem.

There is a lot of symbolism in the works of all of those artists. In fact  Streeton featured heavily in an exhibition at the AGNSW some years back on Symbolism in Australian Art. McCubbins most famous work in the National Gallery (Pioneer) may be the stuff of postcards but is incredibly heavy on meaning and symbolism.

All of those artists DO need a trained eye to work out what their paintings are about.

If you go to any gallery and don't do your homework or listen to what is told to you by guides or audios, you may as well go and admire the artwork on the shelves at Ikea.

(not that I have anything against Ikea - I have some pretty pieces that go well against my decor that I don't have to think about too much lol).

[janeababe]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

as distinct from works by Glover, Streeton, Roberts, Withers, Gueard, McCubbin, Conder - everyone knows they are all rubbish - and it would take a specialy trained eye to work out what they are about and what the artist meant to convey.

---

You can scoff but I think you will find that many painting by the artists you have mentioned are not entirely what they seem.

There is a lot of symbolism in the works of all of those artists. In fact  Streeton featured heavily in an exhibition at the AGNSW some years back on Symbolism in Australian Art. McCubbins most famous work in the National Gallery (Pioneer) may be the stuff of postcards but is incredibly heavy on meaning and symbolism.

All of those artists DO need a trained eye to work out what their paintings are about.

If you go to any gallery and don't do your homework or listen to what is told to you by guides or audios, you may as well go and admire the artwork on the shelves at Ikea.

(not that I have anything against Ikea - I have some pretty pieces that go well against my decor that I don't have to think about too much lol).

---

God Martini, you are starting to sound like a right snob!

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@janeababe wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

If you go to any gallery and don't do your homework or listen to what is told to you by guides or audios, you may as well go and admire the artwork on the shelves at Ikea.

(not that I have anything against Ikea - I have some pretty pieces that go well against my decor that I don't have to think about too much lol).

---

God Martini, you are starting to sound like a right snob!

---

Why? I have more ikea art in my house than real art. And I alluded to that. So what am I being snobby about exactly?

And is that all you got from my response? 

Rabbit makes it sounds as if the only real art is the art where you don't have to think about the meaning, as it is all there staring you in the face. But the artists he uses as examples are anything but straightforward.

You want pretty pictures with no meaning? You won;t find those in an art gallery. Art galleries collect with purpose.

If you want easy to understand art that doesn't ask you to use your grey matter, then Ikea is an ideal venue to see that. Let's not pretend otherwise lol!