Abstract art? What is it? There’s still great confusion out there, even among “professionals” in the art world. I recently saw an online catalogue of abstract artists and I saw Picasso listed. Pablo Picasso never painted an abstract work. As a matter of fact he did not even like abstract art.
Abstract art is a type of art that has no likeness to anything in the natural world. There are no forms or figures that can remind you to humans or animals or anything. It should remind you of nothing. Just like classical music. Classical music can evoke feelings and emotions but it does not remind you of anything.
On the other side of abstract art is figurative art. Any painting that has figures or recognisable forms is automatically figurative art. Perhaps what confuses many is that there are many artists that mix styles in their compositions and place a figurative composition upon an abstract background. But no matter how much colours are played with or how much expressionism is injected into the composition, it is still figurative art.
Abstract photography might differ a bit from abstract painting but it still follows the same rules. And believe me, art has its rules. Composition has rules and one, as an artist will benefit greatly from following them.
As an artist I usually do not think of styles or much less of developing a style, so I mix styles in my work. One thing I usually do, and have done always, is create an abstract background for my paintings. Lately I have titled my work as “surreal-expressionism” but it’s all Jazz Art for me.
These are some photographic images I have manipulated…in a simple manner…to create abstract photography, of course following the rules of abstract art.
And since I do add abstract art to my work, here is a sample. This is a watercolour painting created by establishing a background of colour in an abstract way and superimposing figures drawn with ink. The composition is figurative.
In conclusion, I would recommend to all artists, or students of art, to become fully acquainted with art history. An artist learns from artists of the past much more than from contemporary ones. And remember that the successful contemporary artists are well trained, not only in their craft but in the history of art.
To art lovers and collectors, well I would say that the more knowledge you have of art history the more you will enjoy art and a better collector you will be.
Cheers…
JaZzArt en València 
I like this Video series 🌺✨
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Thank you 🙏🏻
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
*Bodo
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
«What is abstract art?”
Good question. Is it non-representational art? Is it art that doesn’t “accurately” represent something? Is it both? I agree there’s a lot of confusion out there.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
There is. When I see curators or gallerists calling Picasso’s work abstract, I realise that there is an extreme amount of confusion. I was taught that abstract art is art that is non-representational, that should not remind you of anything in the material world. This definition might clash with others but to me it makes sense. What people “see” in an abstract painting is what their brain is creating as it connects dots and tries to give the observer something that is familiar to him/her, but in truth there is nothing there because the reference the artist used to create it…if it’s a good abstract…is internal.
Me gustaMe gusta
Just for fun I grabbed a couple of (10 lb.) art history textbooks (Gardner and Stokstad) and looked up “abstract art” in their glossaries. No listing! They jump from “Abrasion” to “Abstract Expressionism.” Cowards, lol.
I did find this line in the text: “Among those who. . . moved most aggressively into the realm of abstraction was Pablo Picasso.” Like you, I question that claim. Picacco’s goal with Cubism was to move from three-dimensional to four-dimensional illusion, the fourth dimension being time. If he had succeeded, would his paintings have become abstract or even more realistic?
Thanks again for posing an interesting question.
Cheers!
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Picasso himself stated that his work was not abstract. In fact he said there was no such thing as abstraction that everything came from something else. His figurative work, all classical in nature and form, might have had a lot of abstract parts within it, but it was never abstract. When he moved on from cubism, he continued his own way, painting what surrounded him, family, friends, his women. If he were alive today he would be an Instagrammer!
Me gustaMe gusta
*Picasso’s
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I have a question for you Francesc. Understanding the history of art, like all history, is a fascinating subject – or at least it is for me, but following the rules of the past shouldn’t necessarily be adhered to surely. In photography for example, it’s well understood that composition should follow the rule of thirds, and it’s one thing understanding the reasoning behind it, but it’s quite another to follow the rule blindly. If everybody followed the rules there wouldn’t be any new ideas. Are you telling us that Picasso, Matisse, Kandinsky, Dali and co all followed the rules, followed the rules but bent them, or didn’t even bother about the rules at all ?
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
You make a good point. In art school, my favourite…and best…professor told us: Now that you have acquired all this craft, knowledge, talent, ability, go out there, forget all about it and create! That’s what I believed then and still do. You have to know the rules to be a professional, and once you are, you can bend, break or ignore. But what you cannot ignore is that there are rules, there are structures and there is a philosophy to art, to photography, to ballet, to composition, to music et cetera et cetera…
I believe the great ones knew well classical composition and art history and they copied from the ones from their past. Picasso is one that was classical always in all, even his most extravagant compositions, he remained a classic, although towards the end of his career he did cannibalise everybody in art history. So did Dalí, Matisse and even Kandinsky, who did not begin as an abstract artist, but who did figurative work. Dali started out as a cubist, as did Miró. Hope this answers your question my friend. And cheers, I am glad you brought up the subject. All the best,
Francesc
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Good answer . Thank you Francesc.
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Any time my friend!
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
A nice and educational read. Thank you!
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
Thank you Cassa, I am so glad you liked it. All the best and my greetings from the Aegean Sea! 🙏
Me gustaMe gusta
🙏
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
This is so much learning, Sir.
From where I am (Philippines), we also have our own great artists like Fernando Amorsolo, Juan Luna, Ang Kiukok, to name a few. We have studied about them in school.
I don’t know how to paint but there’s always this bond I have with paintings whenever we go to small art stores (usually in the mall). I just love looking at each piece for reasons I really don’t know. 🥰
Back in the days when I still can walk without a cane, me and my daughter would frequent those mini galleries and she would be patient to wait for me until I’m done. 😁
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona
I understand, and I have always known that people love art. I see that when I pass by the museums here in Europe and I see long queues to get in! Thank you Adelheid, and all the best!
Me gustaLe gusta a 1 persona