I love this notion of abstract art from Frank Webb. Coincidentally (was it really coincidence? I think not.) the same weekend Nancy started drawing, I attended the artists' talks for an exhibit at a nearby museum. The only art course I took in college was an Art for Elementary Teachers class in undergraduate, so I moved to the front of the group to hear (and capture in my journal) everything this one artist said. According to her, the difference in abstract art and non-representational art is this: abstract art starts with a familiar object then distorts it while non-representational art is pure expression of emotion. What say you?
I think that artist gave you some definitions. Good places to start. But good things to forget about and just get to work...then look at the work and decide where it fits within the definitions, or if it needs to.
I didn't put the entire Frank W idea here. here's the whole thing. "In designing your picture ask "what do I need here" not "what is out there?" Representative data comes from out there, abstract design comes from inside. This combination separates a work of art from the every dayness of experience. It also gives the work an alien feeling that is mercilessly intimate," So I think that Frank agrees with your artist in a way...he looks at reality and then changes it so that what he is creating on the two dimensional plane of his watercolour paper is an abstraction of what he sees. He filtering familiar objects through his personal vision, his need for a good composition, and the idea that colour is a way of making his emotions visible.
I just put the part of the quote up that spoke to me - the 'mercilessly intimate' part. However, your question makes me think about whether I start with the familiar (sun in sky over horizon) or if I start with something more inner. and is what I make non-representational?
I've been using the word archetypal to describe how I arrive at a place to start. I use first shapes, the ones that children love that have come down through time and across continents. My designs usually start with circles but sometimes they start with colour or sometimes its more about the feel of the cloth. I think that these things are very pure and abstract and that they give me a safe place to communicate emotional responses to not familiar objects so much as familiar relationships.
Thanks for the question. It's good to think about these things. xx
I love this notion of abstract art from Frank Webb. Coincidentally (was it really coincidence? I think not.) the same weekend Nancy started drawing, I attended the artists' talks for an exhibit at a nearby museum. The only art course I took in college was an Art for Elementary Teachers class in undergraduate, so I moved to the front of the group to hear (and capture in my journal) everything this one artist said. According to her, the difference in abstract art and non-representational art is this: abstract art starts with a familiar object then distorts it while non-representational art is pure expression of emotion. What say you?
ReplyDeleteI think that artist gave you some definitions. Good places to start.
DeleteBut good things to forget about and just get to work...then look at the work and decide where it fits within the definitions, or if it needs to.
I didn't put the entire Frank W idea here. here's the whole thing.
"In designing your picture ask "what do I need here" not "what is out there?" Representative data comes from out there, abstract design comes from inside. This combination separates a work of art from the every dayness of experience. It also gives the work an alien feeling that is mercilessly intimate," So I think that Frank agrees with your artist in a way...he looks at reality and then changes it so that what he is creating on the two dimensional plane of his watercolour paper is an abstraction of what he sees. He filtering familiar objects through his personal vision, his need for a good composition, and the idea that colour is a way of making his emotions visible.
I just put the part of the quote up that spoke to me - the 'mercilessly intimate' part. However, your question makes me think about whether I start with the familiar (sun in sky over horizon) or if I start with something more inner. and is what I make non-representational?
I've been using the word archetypal to describe how I arrive at a place to start. I use first shapes, the ones that children love that have come down through time and across continents. My designs usually start with circles but sometimes they start with colour or sometimes its more about the feel of the cloth. I think that these things are very pure and abstract and that they give me a safe place to communicate emotional responses to not familiar objects so much as familiar relationships.
Thanks for the question. It's good to think about these things. xx
and as for nancy's drawings - they are pure and simple communication, aren't they?
Delete