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?

[j*oono]

I can certainly feel your frustration right now Martini.   LOL

Sorry if I'm kudoing you too much but people do need to stop and think.  Cosmos said it so well that people can't appreciate their 5yr old child's painting but they can be so proud of an adult that is doing Anime drawings by the thousands.

I don't find you pretentious or snobby.  I think it's good that you are spending your time volounteering for an an art gallery when most people here couldn't even be bothered to visit one.

[cosmosgrove]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot 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

---

Believe me, you are not missing much. You would be much better off spending your time going to see some works by McCubbin, Roberts or any of the early Australian painters. Now, those tell a story. Call me old fashioned.

---

I've seen works by McCubbin, Roberts, Streeton, Von Guerard and even Monet and DaVinci (among other renaissance artists). There's numerous other artists work that I've seen and appreciated over the years but I've never seen Blue Poles. I was only a young child at the time but I can still remember the front page news and fuss that the purchase of the painting caused.

[***super_nova***]

Everybody has the right to like or dislike piece of art, but they do not have the right to insult the artist and people who  can appreciate it.  Sadly, many people do not understand that just because they do not like and do not understand it does not make it "bad".  There is plenty of technically well executed art that does not appeal to me, and there are some art pieces, which are not anywhere as skillfully done but for some reason or other I like them. 

Simply saying that "5 years old could have done Blue Poles" shows that the person is ignorant.  If they see Blue Poles in flesh, and then say they do not like it because whatever reason, that is fine.  I just wonder why do people feel that they have to comment on something they obviously do not understand. 

Art always pushes boundaries.  There was a time when Beethoven's music was controversial.  Not to mention Stravinski; his Le Sacre du printemps nearly caused a riot in 1913.  Impressionists shocked society; paintings now worth millions were probably declared to be made by 5 years old by people unable to open their minds to something new.

[janeababe]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@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!

---

BECAUSE you imply that to visit an art gallery you have to do some art background homework, and/or listen to the guides...
What a load of rot.. honestly, what a load of rot!
By your terms, if you dont know ANYTHING about art, then you can not appreciate the art displayed in an art gallery! (so we should go and look at the *art* in Ikea!!!)

You are NOT going to see other's POV, in your eyes, you are right, and only you.....
Enjoy your Saturday at the art gallery! I hope Karma doesnt come to visit!! 

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@janeababe wrote:

---

BECAUSE you imply that to visit an art gallery you have to do some art background homework, and/or listen to the guides...
What a load of rot.. honestly, what a load of rot!
By your terms, if you dont know ANYTHING about art, then you can not appreciate the art displayed in an art gallery! (so we should go and look at the *art* in Ikea!!!)

You are NOT going to see other's POV, in your eyes, you are right, and only you.....
Enjoy your Saturday at the art gallery! I hope Karma doesnt come to visit!! 

---

And again, anyone can like to look at art as a pretty picture hanging on a wall without knowing anything about it. There is nothing wrong with that. But then don't be disparaging against other artists that you are equally ignorant about. 

My daughter and I often visit the old paintings in the Victorian section at the AGNSW for no other reason other than to look at the pretty dresses and jewellery. She likes to create stories with them by putting bubble thoughts to their expressions. We have our favourites either because they are beautiful women or their gowns are luscious or the men are funny looking. 

But I know NOTHING about these paintings because ultimately they don't interest me besides the fact that they are pretty pictures. My favourite is one of a little girl in a golden gown pretending to be a queen. I have no idea who the artist is or who the sitter is but it is very pretty. 

However, to REALLY appreciate this piece, I know I should do my homework. Because the painting of the little girl is littered with symbolism. I am sure that if I took the time to find this out, then I woud view this painting in a completely different way.

My post (which you have taken exception to) was responding directly to Rabbit who suggested that abstract art isn't proper art because it was just a mess. And to appreciate real art all you have to do is look for those pieces where you don't have to go out and search for any meanings.

But nearly all art has meaning. And to mention a handful of artists and state they are better pieces because you don't need a "trained" eye to appreciate them, well, THAT is "rot".

[Anonymous]

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.

brought to you by your friendly

volunteer guide 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

"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"

No, Rabbit knows what he likes and what took SKILL to paint. As far as understanding eg "The Letter" or "Down on His Luck" - I have stared at those for hours through my 'ignorant' eyes and wondered - imagined all sorts of scenarios. They make me think.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

I just wonder why do people feel that they have to comment on something they obviously do not understand. ".

So, according to that logic, you must fully understand a piece of music to APPRECIATE it or MAKE A COMMENT on it - who wrote it, his/her life story, what frame of mind were they in at the time, what is the symbolism behind it, not to mention the intracacies of the piece itself, what key is it in, what tempo, what the violins are doing, what the cellos are doing - and everything else about it. If that were the case, not many of us would ever comment on a piece of music.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

I actually have a few McCubbins - originals of course - the ones in the galleries are all copies.

[poddster]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

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

---

So that they too can 'Understand" what the artist had for breakfast the morning of the day it was finished.

That bit of information will put a whole new visual concept on the picture and you too will be able to sprout forth with your new found knowledge and be admired 🙂