Abstract Art vs Realism

[Scout]

It seems to me as if most art work has gone to abstract. I come from the watercolor world and it too is going abstract. Has it always been that way? I personally can't make my brain think that way. I mean as far as doing abstract myself. I tried it in WC and it really screwed with my head. Some of you do both. How can you flip back and forth.

I'm not saying I don't like abstract, I do very much. I can feel others work and appreciate it but I can't do it.

Blake...your personality and professionalism make your work look all the better!

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this. Trivial maybe but interesting to me! Scout

[HappySculpting]

Scout-

My mind works toward extreme realism but you know what, I have the most fun and feel the most free when I do abstract. So I think it's a good exercise on learning to let go and see what can happen with the clay when you let it just happen and then look at it and find the interesting textures. All of it is nothing contrived but just happened.

Then I can go back and do a refined realistic piece and hopefully it will be more raw and allow some of the tooling to show and give it life and spontaniety too. This is all something I'm currently trying to work on.

~Tamara

[JasonGillespie]

Scout,

It seems to me as if most art work has gone to abstract. I come from the watercolor world and it too is going abstract. Has it always been that way?

It only seems as if all artwork has gone to abstraction. (Though it has leaned that direction heavily in the last century) Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. There are many, many artists still practicing non-abstracted work. One reason for this 'seeming' that way is there has been a switch in focus in our institutions of higher learning towards teaching non-objective as the primary means of expression, but objective/traditional subjects are very much a force in this country. If you google 'landscape artists', 'portraitists', or 'figurative artists' you'll see exactly what I mean.

Too, it is true that many galleries and museums have opted for one over the other during much of the latter half of the 20th century, but that isn't really the current paradigm any longer. In fact in recent years there has been a resurgence of traditional/contemporary/objective art in many galleries in NY that used to shun such work. Some of it is what is termed the 'new figurative art'..which seems to have a synthesis of modernism and traditionalism as its goal.

During one of my recent trips to the Chelsea area, galleries showed a fairly close ratio between objective and non-objective artists. The buzz at school is that there isn't a better time to be a figurative/traditional artist in New York....at least not in quite a while.

An interesting article about one aspect of this trend...on an international scale.... can be read at:
http://www.janesmann.com/Articles/aesthetics.html
Jan Esmann is one of a growing number of 'new figurative artists' in European countries, like Odd Nerdum, http://www.oddnerdrum.com/ , that seem to see figuration/objective art on a very large timeline and are harkening back to, for them, worthwhile techniques from the past. I wouldn't say they are my cup of tea exactly, but I understand where they are coming from and see the trends they represent. You can also look up Eric Fischl, Will Cotton, Robert Taplin, Judy Fox, and Peter Drake. These are all artists who are very objective and have had great success in the current fine art market in NY and elsewhere. There are many more, (This doesn't begin to take into account regional artists and geographically specific art trends like Southwestern art, etc...) but you get the idea...abstraction isn't the monster you think it is.

I prefer objective figuration myself, but enjoy a really well done piece of abstracted work immensely. (Sometimes I think that is harder to come across than good traditional subjects) I do at times sketch abstracted shapes and develop my compositions in an almost abstracted fashion(after all it is all design oriented or should be)...it is a very soothing way of working..streamlined and I think that were I to decide to, I might enjoy working in that manner.

[Cantab]

Driven to abstraction, me.
The thing about realism is: given a chance, it will drive you to abstraction anyway. Have a look at two pictures, a painting by Paul Nash and a landscape that inspired him. Both landscapes. Both abstractions. Also: one by his brother, John. Now, the tree stump in the middle: an abstract sculpture, surely, amidst the realism.

[Blake]

Scout
Thank you for your kind words.
Perhaps non-objective work requires further consideration on your part, there is nothing a wonderful as a good teacher and I think that there is value here.
I was originally taught abstract art, as that was the trend in North America at the time I was studying. I had to go to Europe to learn figurative sculpture and it was hard to find someone to teach me. I think that this non-objective way of working was very good training and would suggest that you look at Sculptorsam for just one example of first class abstract work on this site, (there are many others as well). The abstract helped me with composition, balance, line, form as well as negative space, weight and volume, movement, and colour to name a few of the essential elements in art, so it was a great base upon which to build. I was going against the trend when I started but only because I love the figure, not because I thought myself a trend setter or anything. Flipping back and forth as Jason and Happysculpting seems to be able to do, is just not possible for me, the last abstract piece I tried I failed badly at and I have not gone there since, but perhaps I too should return to face this challenge, if only as an exercise, both of us could be pleasantly surprised.
Cantab has an excellent point, often the composition of a work benefits from abstract planning and design.

Blake

[Cantab]

I wonder which is primary: realism or abstraction? Realism as we know it is relatively modern, isn’t it? Born in the Netherlands and Renaissance Italy? When I think of abstraction, I think of Picasso’s rediscovery of African sculpture, and of the incredible love of abstract patterning in tribal art (e.g. Hopi and Zuni indians in America). Tribal cultures appear to have found a use for highly exaggerated natural forms (in depicting the human figure/Gods/spirits) and something significant in abstract patterns. I suspect, as with Picasso, if our sources are abstract and non-realistic, our art will also be so. It may also relate to what we are setting out to do – if you want to create a SENSE of nature, as with Barbara Hepworth, without reference to a specific object in nature, then abstraction is the logical route to take.

[Merlion]

For me, I go for realism. I do mainly figurative sculpture, sometimes animals, but both based on living realism. Sometimes I throw in something abstract or symbolic to supplement the main part of the sculpture.

As to why I go for this, there may be reasons if I sit down to analyse it. But this does not matter, does it? I mainly follow my heart in creating my sculptures. It has to be this way to enjoy my work. And so far my heart goes in the direction of realism.

I said 'so far' as I do not rule out one day my heart may move broader to include more abstract artworks. Have fun.

[cooljamesx1]

Let's break down the walls.

What is real or abstract?

When you go to draw or represent something real, you choose a subject that is beautiful. Something that transcends feeling and emotion. Realism art has value because it is beautiful, not just because it is realistic. A truly talented realism artist must not only be able to be accurate but must also understand what it is about their subject that is beautiful.

Take caricatures of politicians for example. The artists that draw caricatures are never what we would call "realistic", but when you see the drawing, you know exactly who it is. These artists can understand what defines a person's appearance. They know how you recognize someone, and they exaggerate those features.

In the same way, good realistic art comes from an artist that understands the beauty. Take cpr dummies for instance. I have seen some cpr dummies that have extremely realistic faces and torsos. But we wouldn't call them art.

With this in mind, the line between realism and abstract art seems to fade. Say, for example, you see a rock or a tree with a shape that seems powerful or graceful. If you go back to the studio and recreate that feeling you got from the object by utilizing its shape, but your product doesn't really look like the object, is that abstract or realism? You may not have represented the leaves of the tree or the cracks in the rock, but if your product can capture the feeling of the original through shape or proportion, what does it matter?

Art is not about technical difficulty, it's about inspiration. It's about capturing a feeling. The fact is that some things, like human hands and faces, and entire bodies, for that matter are very expressive in the eyes of humans, and they may take excruciating detail in order to put feeling into. But the focus here is not on the detail; It is the feeling created by the detail.

It is hard to tell why abstract shapes show feeling, but it is my belief that abstract forms convey emotion by reminding us of something. There was an abstract piece I recently saw that was very narrow at the base and flared outward at the top and had a slightly spiraled shape as it went up. The piece did not look like anything, but for me, it reminded me or a dancer and it captured the grace and smooth movement that you think of when you think of dancers.

Try not to get caught up in labels. Go for feeling, not accuracy.

[SPRINGFIELD]

This is a realy sore point for me so I won't say to much. I would feel a lot better if an abstract artist started out doing realistic art first. I rember once going to the Pasedna art museum and there were all sorts of so called abstract paintings. One large painting was nothing but three large streight lines taking up the whole canvas and there were people looking at it for what seemed like hours. I just had to ask them what the heck are you looking at they had no answer. At least the artist knew how to use a ruler.

[SPRINGFIELD]

It is the order in the universe that makes the disorder interesting.

[arcdawg]

It takes more of a creative mind to interpet abstract art as compared to realism. Anyone can paint, sculpt, build something lifelike and make the point of what the peice is suposed to be............yet it (I believe) takes a lot more talent and creatitivy to draw the viewer and make them figure out what the piece is ment to be............

[SPRINGFIELD]

It is the artist who should be creative and not the viewer trying to read into a piece of art something which isn't there.

[SPRINGFIELD]

I don't want anywone to missunderstand me. I like a lot of abstract art and I have seen soom pices on this Sculpture Comunity that I realy like a lot. In fact all of my sculptures have been abstract thought that was not my intention.

[JasonGillespie]

I wonder which is primary: realism or abstraction?

An interesting question.
When we look back to the earliest cave paintings and stone carvings we see an abstraction of reality. The Minoan's, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, etc...all used some form of abstracted thought in their interpretations of themselves. Over the millenia mankind has artistically interpreted the world perceived with varying ratios of abstraction and realism. It may be safer to say that it isn't one or the other that is man's destiny. Instead we are both....abstract and realistic....just as we are good and bad, creative and destructive. Our attempts at excising one or the other from our makeup maybe paramount to removing a part of ourselves.



These ancient works are examples, I think, of man searching for a 'realistic' portrayal of himself and his life experience, but they bear the mark of a creative abstraction that comes from the soul and not the world around. It is a marriage of two parts that makes the whole.

[Merlion]

When we look back to the earliest cave paintings and stone carvings we see an abstraction of reality.

In other contexts 'an abstraction of reality' can mean something else. Perhaps what you mean is that these are artistic interpretations of human figures and animal figures. And they have been good enough, they served the purpose, as long as other people can understand what they are supposed to depict - man, woman, animal, etc.

It is of course the ancient Greeks who were the first people to go for realism in figurative sculptures.

Abstract art went on to include our artistic interpretations of other things we see, say rocks, trees, etc. Going further, it is broadened to include art with no connections with any real tangible things.

[Scout]

Well, you guys really got into this. I have to agree that mixing the two is fascinating. I've been letting myself start out abstract and coaxing out what appears. It's like hearing some distant music and putting words to it. I have a hard time making a plan and sticking to it. It just has to evolve. Do you guys have a strict plan when you start a piece? I guess it's different with subtraction. Thanks for all your interest in this R vs A. Maybe the very word "verses" is what causes the action in our pieces. Scout

[Thatch]

Non representational art is not abstract. Any representational art is an abtraction of the objest it represents. An object in it's own right, if it is well crafted, should be able to convey an emotional context even if it is not an abstact representaion of a recognisable form.
To use an example.; Guernica by Picasso is definatly abstract art, while a painting by Franz Kline, who was labelled an Abstract Expressionist actually painted objects that were not abstractions.
I know some of you might think this is picking nits, and in a way it is, but if you start thinking about "Object In It's Own Right" when you view abtract art and think "Abstract" when you view representational art and realize that the labels are incorrect, it might be easier to grasp the emotional context of a form that has no historical context for you.
Music is emotional, creates endorphins, gives me goose bumps. Great art, and that in my book includes roller coasters, stage, film, food, wine, architecture, automobiles, landscapes, painting and sculpture (sorry if I missed one of yours) must elicit a response or it is not great. Putting it into a box with a label is an intellectual exersize that is done after the fact, but it does give one a lot to talk about.

Thatch

[Scout]

Well, I like to look at abstract art. I've been painting some abstracts, but when I put my hands in clay, they want to shape human forms. I have no interest in animals or buildings or much of anything else. I have tried abstracting the figure and haven't had much success. Now, writing to match abstract pieces is something I love to do. I get some wonderful feelings when I write about someone elses abstracts. You have all given me plenty of material to write about. Scout

[JasonGillespie]

In other contexts 'an abstraction of reality' can mean something else. Perhaps what you mean is that these are artistic interpretations of human figures and animal figures. And they have been good enough, they served the purpose, as long as other people can understand what they are supposed to depict - man, woman, animal, etc.


Merlion,

No, that isn't what I am saying, though what you say is true. I am trying to look beneath the surface of what you describe to the dynamic of man interacting creatively/artistically with his environment. Also I want to point out how two seemingly antagonistic concepts, (realism and abstraction), are really bound up together...each integral to the other for their meaning.

Man's artistic interpretations have always held a certain abstraction of form.... even when done within the context of 'realism'. (as my images were meant to show.) This assumes that any artistic deviation from the observable world can be considered an abstracted concept applied. The degree to which this is true varys from one period to another. The idea then is that 'realism' and 'abstraction' have always existed and been used together in differing quantities by mankind in the creation of art. In saying this, I am not adhering to a traditional 'this is abstract and this is realistic' way of viewing art....as if art must be either one or the other. Rather than divide art into the usual digestable morsels, I am trying to look at all art as one seamless organism. (at least for the purpose of this thread) It is an alternate way of looking at the abstract/realism debate.

To my way of thinking, we are constantly abstracting our reality in one way or another and it is an inate aspect of our being human. In a broader sense, realism is what is and abstraction is what we add to it when we create...it is a combining of the raw material of the 'real world' and our own inner 'abstract' ideas about that world. That some artwork is made up of more of the pure 'abstraction of thought' is obvious, but it also allows for 'realistic' works such as the Sistine Chapel to then be considered as somewhat abstracted too.

[robertpulley]

What I feared would be a thread with people championing their chosen approach to art has become pretty fascinating. I particularly appreciated the ideas of non-objective art and what people call abstraction as being object making and that the best of the new objects possess the ability to convey a certain emotional power. I also agree that at the root of all good realistic art is abstraction. I don't think it is the degree of realism in a bronze sculpture of a soldier or ballerina that makes it move the viewer, but the subtle juxtaposition of mass, line, texture and movement that abstractly carries much of the impact. On the other hand, the meaning, as exemplified by what is recognized, seems to help focus the content in the desired direction.

I guess my work might be called abstract expressionist. A bit of figurative reference, but a lot of other references to aspects of nature as well, plus some heavy abstraction. I sometimes regret that with no clear meaning implied in my work by reference to a recognizeable reality only rarely do viewers voice an understanding of what I consider the content of my sculptures. I've dabbled in attempts at realism, but for whatever reason (I wouldn't discount laziness) its just not been for me. I'm not a champion for either cause. I've seen examples of non-objective art and realistic art that have moved me and examples of both that have left me cold and unmoved.
May we all continue to dig as deep as we can.

[mountshang]

I'm not sure why the pottery traditions are usually left out of such discussions -- as they seem, to me, to continue to offer the best examples of non-representational sculpture.

By comparison -- the abstract traditions (of usually larger pieces) begun in the twentieth century have been, to my eye, almost a total bust -- with abstract qualities of form and space that are inevitably inferior to good pottery -- as well as good figure sculpture.

[G. Murdoch]

While visiting Vancouver in January, I took in the Picasso exhibit. Picasso provides an excellent case study for realism vs. abstract. The man was skilled enough to draw / paint pretty much anything he desired to a photorealistic degree by the age of 19-20. When he started pursuing abstractions, his established skill enabled him to depart from strict rendering of his subject to more of an internal / genius vision of the world.

I believe what hampers my enjoyment of many absract works is that, unlike Picasso, most artist pursuing abstractions on normal vision have not established that they have the skill to render what they see.

The only way to prove that one is rendering thier private special vision with any accuracy, is to have proven skill rendering common objects.

Graham

[JasonGillespie]

G. Murdoch,

I would respectful disagree with your comment that...
The only way to prove that one is rendering thier private special vision with any accuracy, is to have proven skill rendering common objects.


Abstract art does not require that one know how to render the observable world. It may improve the overall experience and outcome, but abstraction is really about design and there are many in this world who are extremely talented at that aspect of art while being less than proficient in traditional drawing skills.

Abstraction is closer, in my mind, to music than the traditional way of creating art. The elements and principles of art are like musical notes that can be combined, put side by side, and overlapped to produce many different effects. Those working in a 'realistic' vein use these 'notes' as well, but the abstract artist can use them without any inteference from an outside reference.

In a sense, at least to my mind, this 'purer' use of the building blocks of art that are at work in abstraction is like composing a piece of music. The shapes, forms, lines, values, colors, etc...create the meaning that is lacking from not having an identifiable subject. This does not require the ability to render realistically. It does require a keen sense of design and a knowledge of how these elements fit and work together. Picasso's having the skill and training in realism merely added another element to the abstract work he did.

The pitfall with abstraction can be that it is easier to say your work is a 'good' abstract work without having to explain why. To this you can then add the general ignorance of many who view such works...this mixture most often results in lending value and credence to otherwise unsound abstract work. It is a slippery slope that can give little purchase to those unaware of how to tell the difference.
At the root of the problem is the fact that abstraction has become as institutionalized an idea as realism and anybody can wake up one morning and say...'I'm an abstract artist' without anyone batting an eye or checking to see if the statement is true. (It is much harder to say this in the traditional arts where the criteria is easy to see.) And a good number of these abstract artists are horrible designers with almost no real knowledge of how to use the elements and principles that underly their work......and it pretty much shows. This, not the lack of realistic rendering, is in my opinion what creates problems in enjoying much of the abstract work out there.

A good overview article on the origins of abstraction (the movement) by Hilton Kramer can be read here http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/16/sept97/hilton.htm . It delves into the 'backstory' of what was at the roots of abstraction and provides sound reasons why it can't really be judged by traditional standards and expectations.

[Scout]

Maybe it's easier to stay in the creative side of the brain when you aren't yanked out by "outside reference". Abstract artists don't have to filter through the analytical side of the brain to keep it right. Since there is no reference...like you say Jason...who's to say it wasn't intentional. Where as an arm too long is a big fat red flag! (did I only just condense what you were trying to say Jason?) Scout

[fritchie]

Without quoting specific statements, I think I come down somewhere near Jason on this question. (Feel free to correct me if you disagree, Jason.) That is, I don’t think a given piece of sculpture or painting, pottery, or probably any art form, can be classified as purely realistic or abstract. There is only a degree of one or the other on an infinitely variable scale.

Outside of a few very talented contemporary or recent Western sculptors, the Classical Greeks came as close as any group to pure Realism, as we can see from the marbles and occasional bronzes we have today. Studies show they actually painted their marbles in relatively naturalistic colors, and I think also their bronzes. But comparison of these figures with living humans shows that essentially all are idealized or abstracted to one degree or other. Even Michelangelo’s David, probably the epitome of “realism” in figuration, color aside, is abstracted to a high degree. That is, it shows the sculptor’s concept of an ideal figure and, though many real persons might be found at any time who resemble David, each will deviate in obvious ways when compared.

Relevant to this point is the story of the principal Parthenon sculptor (Phidias, I believe), who invited anyone interested to watch over a period of months while he carefully copied a well-known athlete in clay or stone, but secretly used the same man in private to do a more free-form piece. When both were finished, he put them side by side, and essentially everyone agreed that the free-form piece was better.

The real conflict, it seems to me, arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor “abstract” than “realistic” sculpture is produced and installed for the public. For the converse of this state, see the recent post by Mountshang of sculpture from Communist East Germany before the reunification of East and West. These pieces are completely or predominately realistic, and most are poorly done.

[ironman]

Hi, This thread kills me. It pisses me off.
First of all, good work is good work, whether it be realistic or non-objective.
Picasso NEVER did non-obj work. All his pieces had realistic imagery in them. All be it, distorted or changed in one way or another. THAT'S CALLED CREATIVITY!
Picasso hated Pollock and DeKooning's work.
I do non-obj work, but I was trained in realism and know how to draw.
I draw all the time.
Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but for all of you realists out there who don't understand non-obj art and bitch about it, why don't you start by getting an education, looking at art and reading about it.
After all, The first piece of non-obj work was done by either Malevich or Kandinsky (ever heard of them?) around the time of WW ONE! That's a few years ago! I can't believe this discussion is even happening!
You do know that when you, oh lets say, sculpt a portrait OR paint a landscape, you are making a sculpture or a painting, you are not creating a person or a tree.
Artistic license comes into play to give the FEELING and the LOOK of the person or the landscape. IT IS AN ABSTRACTION!
Have a great day,
and don't bother this curmudgeon with any more nonsense.
Jeff

[JasonGillespie]

Scout,
You're right. There is a greater degree of subjectivity built into creating abstracted art....which in turn makes for a lot of grey area when critiquing it. A good and certain thing is....color theory never changes nor does a pleasing/appropriate placed line, shape, form, or value relationship, etc. The relationships between the various elements that go into to creating art are based in science and our optical/mental perception reads them accordingly. When these are misused due to ignorance they show up...even in abstract work. It is easier to get away with more doing abstracted work, but if the viewer is savvy, the artist's skill or lack there of will still be obvious.


fritchie,

I'd say you got it right. No disagreement here. Your first sentence in the last paragraph rang especially true....
The real conflict, it seems to me, arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor “abstract” than “realistic” sculpture is produced and installed for the public.
That would be it in a nutshell.

[Cantab]

I personally think that part of the problem for realism in the 20th century was a crisis in confidence, and this fatally undermined it at the forefront of art history. The 20th century saw the development of a new scientific elite, who rewrote the nature of ‘reality’ (yep, it’s not what you see out there at all, folks!). Einstein rewrote time/space; the development of biology and pyschology rewrote how we relate to the world and see it. Eventually modernism, and then postmodernism, pointed out that there is no reality to depict (or if there is, you probably invented it, and are in any case only asserting your own narrative over others, and your own world view over others). Well, that left traditional realism precisely, well, nowhere. The result: just as photography undermined one aspect of realism's domain in the nineteenth century, the artist’s claim to representation was lost. Scientific formulae replaced art for the representation of reality. The result of this: representational art became a backwater (no offence). It’s legitimacy was fatally undermined for all artists who took the relation of their art to ‘things as they are’ seriously. Of course, statuary continues, and strict realism in various forms is still a joy to behold. It just doesn’t make sense in the modern world. As with medieval and Renaissance art, the world view that underpins our age dictates the art. Realism is the past because the confidence in appearances that formed it has gone. All gone. And I’m not sure what to feel about it either, or HOW to feel about it, since I may be just another person asserting my own narrative. Jacob Bronowski wrote, in the 1970s, discussing the implications of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle for thought and knowledge, that there is only one thing you can now be sure of, and that is this: if you think you are right, you are certainly wrong. This is where we are, then - assured realistic surfaces? They are just wrong!

Modern abstraction perhaps starts with Cubism, That was Picasso/Braque's attempt to deal with the crisis in point of view (a very 20th century dilemma) and an attempt to apply a (pseudo) scientific approach to representation. After this, and the African experiments in cross-cultural experimentation, the limitations and weaknesses in European representational art were foregrounded, with the result that even those who continued to commit to figurative work (Picasso;Hockney, etc) could never do it unselfconsciously ever again. It's worth remembering that Picasso abandoned realism - that's were he started. His world view became 'modern', and he sensed before most others, that this meant realism must go.

[anatomist1]

Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING.


I think this is dogmatic art school nonsense. I can't draw at all. Never could. Yet, the first time I picked up a bar of Ivory soap and a pocket knife I carved a decent bodybuilder's torso and arm in a few hours. Today, I've made well over 100 completed sculptures in mixed media, clay, wood, steel, etc... using everything from 3D models to pictures to no models at all. I still can't draw, and see no reason to even try.

I conceptualize 3D objects in 3D. My process for making them has to do with looking at the sculpture from thousands of angles and making thousands of tiny improvements and corrections to the object over time. Drawing has to do with all kinds of little tricks and skills to render 3D into 2D, mostly doing so using a few decisive lines. It seems to me like a completely unrelated process and skill. The only drawings I ever have any use for are exploded-view drafting style drawings, which I sometimes make to help plan and build furniture.

[Cantab]

You may be right anatomist1 - I know of many sculptors who have an astonishing eye for the form. I don't, and an jealous!

[MountainSong]

I’m with Ironman here. Discussions about which is better realism or abstractionism are just irritating. It begs a person to choose one or the other. *rollseyes*

Every genre has something to offer, fauvism, impressionism, cubism, abstractionism, Dadaism and on and on.

New genres were developed because realism didn’t say enough and couldn’t say enough. Each new genre has pulled the artistic conversation/experience forward and made it current to the culture it was born into, they represented a new level of artistic understanding at that time, which in time led to the development of the next -ism. The Avante Garde leads the art world. It’s the cutting edge of artistic development and thought.

Without understanding what has been, why and which developments led to what how can I as an artist claim to understand my field or ever expect to do anything which is not a regurgitation of something done a thousand time over and probebly done better?
I consider it my responsibility as a professional artist to educate myself in the arts. No matter what particular ism I ultimately choose to settle in it will be done best and with authority when I’m armed with the current available knowledge and comprehension of the arts. One doesn’t have to go to art school to become an important artist but one had best know a little bit about the art world if they want to move ahead of the pack.

For Springfield, I can't think of any abstractionist who are/were worth their weight who didn't pay their dues in realism. Most of them around ten years. It's an important stepping stone for comprehending abstrationism.

[Chashab]

I would feel a lot better if an abstract artist started out doing realistic art first.

This is sometimes the case, as with Picasso. And I agree with you: People should start with realism. It is a discipline and it will go far in tightening a person's hand/eye coordination and sense of scale and proportion. (I see now G.Murdoch has already mentioned this.)

I wonder if the OP wouldn't have been better worded to say "Realism or 'non-representational'" art, instead of abstract? This is how I learned it. However, as I "mature," I'm not certain the distiction between non-representational and abstract is very significant.

It takes more of a creative mind to interpet abstract art as compared to realism.

This is actually my wife's take on realism; she has no formal artistic training, FWIW.

I'm not sure if you've worded it quite correctly though . . . maybe I just don't like the wording because it comes across as "artist as genius," which is a concept I won't buy into.

I have to agree that mixing the two is fascinating.

This is one reason I REALLY like Rodin's "Danaide."

Theoretically, I think someone could argue that even realism is abstract . . . as Jason said (and fritchie later notes):

Also I want to point out how two seemingly antagonistic concepts, (realism and abstraction), are really bound up together...each integral to the other for their meaning.

. . . and Robert:

[I . . . that at the root of all good realistic art is abstraction.[/I]

I'm not sure why the pottery traditions are usually left out of such discussions -- as they seem, to me, to continue to offer the best examples of non-representational sculpture.

I'd venture an educated guess and say that it has to do with pottery being viewed by contemporary minds as 95% functional, even if beautiful. As I recall from my ceramics classes, we talked of historical pottery in technical terms more than "artistic" terms. Not so much the modern stuff . . . perhaps we need to distinguish the two. My favorite ceramics prof (http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=3434) does sculptural dinnerware . . . which blurs the line between art and craft . . . which is part of his intention.

Abstraction is closer, in my mind, to music than the traditional way of creating art.

Fascinating thought . . . sounds like something I would think . . . will have to think on it!

And I also disagree that "The only way to prove that one is rendering thier private special vision with any accuracy, is to have proven skill rendering common objects." Although I can't say why at the moment . . .

Even Michelangelo’s David, probably the epitome of “realism” in figuration, color aside, is abstracted to a high degree. That is, it shows the sculptor’s concept of an ideal figure and, though many real persons might be found at any time who resemble David, each will deviate in obvious ways when compared.

Not only this, "David's" proportions are, IIRC, intentionally abstracted in order to make him look more "real" to the viewer. This because of the scale of the piece, and the viewer looking so far up to his face . . . and the nature of perspective.

Hi, This thread kills me. It pisses me off.

Er, then, maybe you should find a forum where people don't ponder the mysterious so much . . . if you don't find interest in such theoretical discussions . . .

anatomist1's response to the idea that "Drawing is the foundation of EVERYTHING" is appropriate — but as I began this lengthy post will I also end it: There is great value in the discipline of realism as a student.

[ironman]

Hi, There is a quote in Jason Gillespie's post

"The real conflict, it seems to me arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor "abstract" than "realistic" sculpture is produced and installed for the public."

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE PUBLIC CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD FIGURATIVE WORK" ANY MORE THAN THEY CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD NON-OBJ WORK"?

Hi Anatomist1, You must be the next Michelangelo, oops, no, that can't be, he used to draw, and for that matter so did Rodin, Moore, Smith and probably every major sculptor we've ever heard of. If it was good enough for them, I guess for my own humble self, it's good enough for me to learn how and to draw on a daily basis.
Drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist.
"Dogmatic art school nonsense", I don't think so!
But that's okay, limit yourself and your development as an artist.
Who cares?
I was going to answer my question with "not me!" but since I'm answering your post about drawing, I obviously do, and passionately.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[ironman]

Hi Chasab, I have to laugh at what you said to me, But in this day and age I find it incredible that this discussion is even taking place. Of course, you're right, I could just not open this thread, but it's CATNIP!

Hi Mountainsong, I agree,Thank you!

Have a great day,
Jeff

[HappySculpting]

I think it's fascinating that Anatomist doesn't draw, in yet is adept at sculpture. I personally don't know of any sculptor that doesn't draw so it is intriqueing to me. Another thread could be made on the topic of "Are good drawing skills necessary to be a fantastic sculptor?"

Most artists(that I know) have had an interest in art since they were young and this usually means that color crayons, finger painting, and learning to sketch was their first kind of art and then they grew up and branched out from there.

But perhaps Anatomist started his interest in art in a different way or later in life and learned to "draw" in 3D. Even though he says he can't draw, I bet if push came to shove, he could draw something awesome because he's learned all about line and form sculpture.

(I think it's better to ask questions than make put down statements. Can we keep the forum on a courteous level for the benefit of all? Just my personal taste. ;) )

[Chashab]

Hi Chasab, I have to laugh at what you said to me, But in this day and age I find it incredible that this discussion is even taking place. Of course, you're right, I could just not open this thread, but it's CATNIP!
Jeff

Catnip eh! Good analogy . . .

My take on the whole deal boils down to: There's just not an easy answer, and while we may be batting around semantics, there can still be a lot of value in this type of discussion.

MountainSong probably put it well:

I’m with Ironman here. Discussions about which is better realism or abstractionism are just irritating. It begs a person to choose one or the other. *rollseyes*

Every genre has something to offer, fauvism, impressionism, cubism, abstractionism, Dadaism and on and on.

[anatomist1]

I guess I don't understand the x vs. y element behind the thread either. I am a very skeptical person, and in my book, the kind of knowledge that leads one to be able to make objective-sounding statements doesn't exist in art and is irrelevant. Trying to do so just results in 'I like x' or 'I dislike y' statements with a lot of pretensions and window dressing.

Speaking of such statements, we've got another one now: 'drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist'. More nonsense. I don't draw and I can see. I see contours of objects in minute detail that many don't... probably orders of magnitude more than average. I have never seen anyone - sculptors and other artists included - that has examined any of my more detailed pieces for long enough or with anywhere near the scrutiny required to see what I've really done there.

I can compose photographs, which is a 2d composition skill. I just can't draw, and I've never touched paint, except to paint houses and such. As I said, I'm not really interested. In fact, I'm not really interested in 2d art in general, excepting photographs. I find some of the greats mildly interesting in a sort of academic sense, but the majority of painting and drawing barely even attracts my interest.

[Thatch]

I guess I was drawing before I was sculpting but I do consider that the 1st "Art" that I made was 3D. I found out at a much later date that I had the ability to grasp the concept of what something could become in the future. This came about during my passion for Japanese style gardening which takes years to accomplish. For several reasons I have left that goal incomplete, but that is another story.

In my view of things it is important to view art that is both fresh and that which caused some turning point in the ebb and flow of what is acceptable to the term Art. Granted most turning point art is only that with perspective and in most cases had little to do with what was contemporarily acceptable. This does create a perspective and is usefull as a guide in helping create ideas in your mind's eye on things that that are not yet made. With this perspective and the ability to conceptualize we create. However this ability or talent is just a tool. I personally can not fathom the need to become a slave to any one particular style because I find it limiting. This is partly do to a lack of ability on my part but is mainly do to a lack of interest in repeating myself endlessly.

I do figural and object in it's own right forms. While part of this is due to the fact that I lack the dicipline and motivation to create replicas of the human form to the degree of realism that is require for it to compete in the realm of those who have these merits the truth of the matter is that I very much prefere to just start working and let the form emerge as I go along. While this is not always succesfull because you can't go back after you act when you are working in the removal method I find the challenge of compromise to reach an ever changing goal created by my abilty to conceptualize to be the actual part of the process that I enjoy the most. And face it, if I didn't find some kind of deep personal enjoyment in the process I just would not do it. I do not by any means, because of physical and monetary restraints, get to do anything I want, but at this point in my life I have found the freedom of being in the position of very seldom having to do something that I do not want to do other than some of the things I must do to stay alive.

While this whole debate about the merits, or lack of any particular style or dicipline has been enjoyable and edifying because it gives me some insight in how others think, I really find the whole point moot. The ability to actually create something of value, even if only to yourself, is in my mind only transended by being able to do it to the very best of your abilities.

Thatch

[G. Murdoch]

I agree that abstract art is more about design, yet how is a viewer able to judge whether the rendered design is true to the artist's inner vision?

I know that Picasso's work very closely reflects his inner vision, because he proved that he could render what he sees to a high degree of accuracy.

I know that my non-objective work reflects my inner vision to a lesser degree than Picasso. I say this because I have no problem honestly admitting that my visual thinking skills, and my skill with tools, fall short of mastery.

I submit that any artist who claims to be rendering thier inner vision, should be able to prove thier skills by rendering common objects. If an artist cannot draw / paint / sculpt common objects to a degree of accuracy that enables people to clearly recognise what is being rendered, then any claims to "being true to my inner vision" lack credibility.

All of this being said, it is still possible to produce artwork of compelling presence and beauty without masterful skill. It is also possible for highly skilled and technically profficient artists to produce work which lacks presence and beauty.

It is not so much about abstract vs. realism, which one is better. Every artwork exists somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes. It is about quality.

Graham

[Tlouis]

Hi, you're a pistol ironman. I admire your gutsy no nonsense approach. Guess that's what makes your sculpture so strong.
Can't abide the cerebral gymnastics in some of these threads. Can't wait to read your next missive.
Happy sculpting
Lou

[ironman]

Hey Tlouis, I'm a New Yorker, Waddya expect? fuggetaboudit!

Hi Graham, Abstract art IS NOT more about design. Who or what gave you that idea?


You are RIGHT ON about the QUALITY thing though, whether realistic or non-obj, without that sometimes intangible quality, the work falls into mere decoration or worse yet, art that just IS (without expressing something, feeling, concept,etc.)!
Art has to do more than just BE, and it is only by looking at the great art in the museums that one can develop the esthetic response and TASTE to see difference.
Have a great day, you too Louie!
Jeff

[fritchie]

Hi, There is a quote in Jason Gillespie's post

"The real conflict, it seems to me arises from the inability of the average person to identify quality in sculpture, and in our age that means more poor "abstract" than "realistic" sculpture is produced and installed for the public."

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE PUBLIC CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD FIGURATIVE WORK" ANY MORE THAN THEY CAN IDENTIFY "GOOD NON-OBJ WORK"?

Jeff
Jason picked that up from my earlier post, and you read it too fast. There's more poor abstract sculpture purchased and installed today than poor figurative simply because there's probably ten times as much abstract purchased by the public. I've named many major abstract sculptors over the months in this forum whose work I find excellent, but few realists for just this reason.

And, since this fact also has come into the discussion, I can't draw worth beans. Like Anatomist1, I basically see in 3D, so all I have to do is transfer that to clay, with constant correction from the model, if I'm using one. For the last several years, I've produced only partial figures from imagination, and I think they are about as realistic as the earlier pieces from models, though of course they are more generalized.

[JasonGillespie]

ALL ART IS ABOUT DESIGN....ALL ABOUT DESIGN.

As to the nature of drawing as a factor in sculpture...I'd have to fall in with ironman on this one. All the significant sculptors I can think of drew. The honing of perception that drawing provides is reason enough to do it. I can draw 2-D or visualize 3-D in my mind, but my work is strengthened when I do both as opposed to only one. Each must do as they feel led though. As with anything...the proof is in the pudding.

For those that do not enjoy discussing/pondering these questions...a thought.....wouldn't it be better for you if you just didn't post...rather than taking up your time complaining of the fact? No disrespect, but why not ignore the thread if you think it is not worthwhile? That is what I do in other instances.

[ironman]

Hi, man you guys are a tough bunch!
"drawing is how you learn to SEE as an artist, more nonsense."
Oh yeah Anatomist1, Well what makes you think that finding every pimple, nuance and crevice on a model makes you an artist?
Finding all those minute details and putting them in your sculpture makes you a illistrator, at best.
That's not what art is about!!!!!!!!!!!!
Art is about expressing yourself, the inner you, that no one gets to see or hear from.
Your feelings, the uniqueness of you!
I've never met an artist who was not interested in other media. That astonishes me!
You need to spend some time in front of some Goya's or some Van Goghs or Munch's or Soutine's.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[anatomist1]

You need to learn to make "I" statements, Jeff. The problem here seems to be that you essentially think you are god and any number of your opinions are objective facts. Here I, a lowly mortal, have dared to provide a couterexample to one of your assertions, and you resort right to insinuating that I'm ignorant and not an artist.

I'm not sure if the chain of reasoning from before is of any importance at this point, but the reason I brought up detail and accuracy is that I see it and can render it, in multiple media. It appeared you were asserting that this was somehow not technically possible without drawing first. Now I see you are talking about 'seeing' in some more esoteric way.

Given how vaguely you've defined it so far, I don't see how I can defend whether I'm an artist or can 'see' in this way. Maybe not. I probably don't care. I never refer to myself as 'an artist' because almost every time I've ever heard anyone make a point of doing so, it was in the context of being a pretentious ass.

As far as your definition of an artist goes, I'm getting the distinct impression it has a lot to do with following rules, doing what you are supposed to, doing what everyone else does, and imitating the behavior of other people who you think are 'great'. If so, I doubt I'll ever qualify.

[JasonGillespie]

I've never met an artist who was not interested in other media. That astonishes me!
You need to spend some time in front of some Goya's or some Van Goghs or Munch's or Soutine's.

Ironman,

Your point is a good one. Experience in/knowledge of various mediums only enhances your overall studio practice. Art history and other artists' work (as you point out) are integral to being well rounded...whether you're abstract or realistic. As with anything else, we ultimately focus on those things we are particularly drawn to, but I have found only good coming from expanding my knowledge/experience base.

[obseq]

Ironman, and everyone else,

Feel free to dissect anyone's ideas or thoughts into smithereens,
but please keep the comments non-personal.

Thanks.

[anatomist1]

Appparently no one here has ever heard of folk art or outsider art.

Incidentally, I have seen plenty of paintings and drawings. I know a little about the main trends in western and some eastern art history. I have taken at least 12 credits of art history classes, more if you count aesthetics courses in the philosophy department. What I said is that I generally don't find paintings and drawings very interesting.

I also don't think much of the above, or any more of it, has been or would be particularly useful to my work. My inspirations are mostly nature and science, particularly archeaology, biology, anatomy, and especially old-school scientific ideas and medical practices now deemed outdated or crazy.

While we're at it, I also don't care much about most other people's sculpture either, including the "greats". Whether or not someone is considered great means beans to me. I'll decide for myself whether I like something or have any interest in it, without letting reputation enter into it.

Contrary to what is being peddled so dogmatically here, I think paying too much attention to what other people have done and having any a priori reverence for other artists is a bad idea... at least for me. Not only do I disdain the kind of conformism being pushed in principle, I think it increases the chances one will do something derivative, uninteresting, or part of a fad. For me art is a realm of freedom and independence.

[MountainSong]

For what its worth I don’t draw either, but did 20 years ago when learning and exploring realism, and feel that it jumped the curve up for me in realism to be honest.
Now I do not draw at all, don’t even have a sketch pad. I go straight to the canvas or metal and begin creating because preplanning a piece plans out the creativity and spontaneity which drops the energy levels. (important in non-objective art, though not as much in realism)

As an artist I’m confident enough to make a piece work whether it started with a specific idea or not. If I run into problems mid-stream the piece gets photographed and put it into photoshop and any problems it may have developed are worked out there. This is a very effective approach with non-objective art and many artists I know do it regularly and even critique work that way over the net.

At this stage of the game - expanding my artistic understanding of art history is critical to being able to cross over the line from doing what has been done to doing that which is utterly unique and fresh.
Last week I spent hours with 300 Picasso’s (a retrospective) and yesterday with 27 Rothko’s (a retrospective) and Nam June Paik (an important Korean Avante Garde sculpture who had to make it in New York before he was accepted in his homeland). Four years ago I spent 3 months in 11 countries of Europe touring all the great master artists, sculptors and architectural works.
What was learned, saw, felt and absorbed first hand can not be expressed effectively in words but that knowledge will be expressed in art, becoming multi lingual in art is anything but a hindrance. The more you know the more you are empowered to break free and speak uniquely with a fresh voice.

Anatomist1, Folk, Outsider, art naive, primitive et all - Yes. Of course. :)

[MountainSong]

Perhaps I should add, that art is a visual language, therefore the more languages we understand the more we are put into a position to develop our own unique language. That’s why retrospectives are so interesting. It seems like it takes most artists 20-25 years to learn to speak in their own voice, up to that point it is exploring the arts through others languages who have gone before. Few artists have ever been prodigy’s who popped out Year Two with anything interesting to say, also one must live long enough to have something interesting to say and have developed the tools and nuances to say it when the time comes.
Through time, studying and doing we learn to speak the visual language with finite articulation and eloquence.

[anatomist1]

Perhaps I should add, that art is a visual language, therefore the more languages we understand the more we are put into a position to develop our own unique language. That’s why retrospectives are so interesting. It seems like it takes most artists 20-25 years to learn to speak in their own voice, up to that point it is exploring the arts through others languages who have gone before. Few artists have ever been prodigy’s who popped out Year Two with anything interesting to say, also one must live long enough to have something interesting to say and have developed the tools and nuances to say it when the time comes.
Through time, studying and doing we learn to speak the visual language with finite articulation and eloquence.

Your second sentence seems to argue against your whole thesis and in favor of mine. Perhaps if people were not educated with this philosophy of being 'well-rounded' and the expectation of revereing and knowing in detail the work of so many who came before, they would not get bogged down speaking in someone else's language for so many years.

As for your language analogy itself, I'm not sure it necessarily argues the thesis either. Does one really need to learn foreign languages in order to write well in english?

Even when it comes to writing english, a huge counter-example comes to mind in the form of Mark Twain. He certainly read quite a lot, but mostly newspapers and whatever he pleased from libraries - he did not extensively study the entire lexicon of 'English Literature' of the time, and did not study foreign languages. He developed his craft writing about what he knew, about things from his own life - mostly in the form of newspaper stories at first, but his approach even to those was wildly idiosyncratic. He never had a whit of reverence those considered masters in his day, or for any established rules about how or what to write. He worked from his imagination and from what he thought was the correct rendering of good english and dialects according to his judgement. He is now widely considered to have 'invented' American Literature.

[cmustard]

Hi,

There is a great book on art philosophy written by Susanne K. Langer, called "Feeling and Form" which addresses this very topic.

She comes from the premise that the basis for all art.... music, dance, visual etc....stems from the manipulation of the formal elements that go into thier making. In visual art those elements consist of, forms, lines, shapes, colors, mass, volume and so on.

It's not the depth of realism or the technical accomplishment that makes great art great. It's the dynamic created through combining formal elements. Much like the way rhythms and melodies are formed through combining notes in music.

Not all things in art are equal. Some put the notes together in more significant, powerful ways then others. Some are abstract, some are very literal. As in anything else, there are varying degrees of good, bad and great.

David

[MountainSong]

Actually we’re not that far apart in our thinking Anatomist1, just in our approach. The thesis appears to contradict its self because of brevity; I don’t want to bore people with mental minutia who are coming from a very different head space.
I’m generally against formal training and don’t study other artist work or approaches for the simple reason that I think it stifles original creative thought. When I view art it is not from the fine detail nuance point of view but more from seeing the overall big picture – the psychology of their life’s out put, creative exploration, expression and honing of the visual language rather than a specific paintings per say.

Aaaarg, this is so hard to explain.

What I’m working towards as an artist is the Avante Garde edge, so understanding the structures behind other artistic languages is relevant to developing a new discourse.
Let’s say I’m approaching it more from the linguist point of view. Understanding the tonal inflections of languages and how their structured naturally in a way that expresses their cultural history as a people rather than the specific language/words in and of themself.

For example the Zulu clicks, whistles and wind sounds as an artifact of living on the edge of herds as a hunter people, the French languages graceful poetic sound matches with their love of fine things, the almost military clip and forcefulness of German and their concurrent history and so on. Languages carry a lot of information about a people without one having to speak the actual language.

My approach to art, at least at this time, is similar. Especially with Modern and Contemporary work it is difficult to give a specific ‘sentence’. But it is possible to build an effective overall view and impression of an environment, idea or concept.

*sigh* Sometimes these conversations are just better in person.

[anatomist1]

Well, if your interest is being on the Avant Garde edge, that seems to be a different matter. In order to do that, you are going to have to have a thorough familiarity with all the contemporary stuff, stretching back into history. In that endeavor, it seems like the art is more about being part of conversation or scene. Here, not doing something that has been done before, especially unwittingly, would be very important. Also having what you do be an extension or leap off of something else that was edgy recently might be important.

As for me, I am not that concerned about these issues. If I unwittingly do something that has been done before, it doesn't bother me, as I did not do it before. Whether my work is considered edgy and avant garde, or naive, or "just folk art" or even "just craftsmanship" isn't particularly important to me. At least it hasn't been so far.

I also take photographs - sometimes landscapes which are pretty much just like something you would see on a calendar or in a nature magazine. I'm not really trying to come up with something that has never been done before - with photography this seems nearly impossible anyway. I like the picture and had some satisfaction in the process of finding and composing it. That's enough.

With sculpture, I am becoming a bit more ambitious, but not exactly sure of my ultimate goals. I always have a pretty good gut-level idea of what I want to do next, though, which also seems to be enough. My influences are almost all outside of the art realm and I see no need to look where I have little interest. I really can't fathom why some others on this thread find this so impossible or objectionable, or where the impulse to impose their own methods and opinions on others comes from.

[MountainSong]

You understand anatomist1. Ultimately the arts are about self expression and exploration of self. So we can only do art that is in our current life experience and expressive of what we know. We are what we think right?

Believe me I’m not even close to the avante garde yet, but for the first time in decades of creating it has suddenly come onto the radar as a realistic possibility, there’s a lot of work to be done between now and then though, but I think I’m starting to understand the processes involved finally, maybe within ten years it can happen. Is it important? No, not particularly, except to me personally. Evolution of self and ideas is what drives the 'behind the scenes' of the artist life.

Ten years of realism taught me all I cared to cover of that which could be visually and concretely experienced from the world, to continue artistically I had to continue to evolve or else stagnate.
So I explored the human experience through emotional abstractionism, painting the things we feel and the experience of emotion - yet another artistic language.
Now 2 decades away from starting as an artist it’s time to explore something else, it’s still a little undefined right now four pieces into a new genre, maybe something about cultural architects/mythos and the building blocks of societies as viewed through the Korean culture and expressed through contemporary/modern works…not sure, it'll sort its self out though.

The point is as artist we have the possibility to explore, in a very poignant way, the world around us, and every exploration broadens our horizons and strengthens our visual dialog.
We can choose to specialize in only one genre and thus have a limited though perhaps very precise vocabulary, or become multi-lingual with a multi-pronged vocabulary. What we chose probably depends on who we are fundamentally and how daring and exploratory we are or aren’t.

It’s not surprising that artists who specialize don’t understand other genres, It is the nature of the beast and the nature of being human. It is also the nature of some people to label and make pronouncements on things they don’t understand or care for and it’s certainly not art specific either.

[G. Murdoch]

I like the language analogy. In my opinion it requires greater language skill to communicate effectively the further one travels into non representation, and the best way to practice and hone visual communication skills is to spend time and effort toward the representational end of the spectrum. All languages have building blocks and evolving rules of construction; alphabets, words, syntax, grammer etc...music as well; notes, tones, harmonics, chords, rythums, etc...

What tends to happen a lot, in my experience of non-rep art, is individuals without the ability to play the simplest scales, composing discordant works of symphonic complexity, then marching under the banner of "being true to my inner vision". I know I'm repeating myself, but what the hell. Please learn the basic rules of visual communication by practising representation, then proceed to express your inner vision through whatever abstractions inspire.

There are many exceptions. One of my favorite works of art is a pencil crayon drawing of the sky that my daughter gave me for father's day several years ago. All of the art that she has given me over the years arouses predictable sentimental attachment. I love her. She made this for me. It's beautiful. I love it! However this one drawing is absolutely visually compelling to look at. I can hardly tear my eyes away. At the time that she made it, she had the drawing skill of, well, an 8 year old, yet it possesses in large measure that special something which makes a work of art great. It is not present in the vast majority of her drawings. Though I love everything she does for sentimental reasons, I love this drawing for sentimental and aesthetic reasons.

On the other end of the scale, I have stood before many works of art which were clearly rendered with skill, yet they leave me feeling flat.

As I ramble through this, I'm becoming convinced that there are no hard and fast rules which work in all situations. There is the personal and private reaction to each work encountered.

Even if a thousand of these discussions leave the issue unresolved, it is fun to engage in them. Language frisbee.

Graham

[classicalsculpt]

To me it is all about what I enjoy. I have created some pieces that no one else "understood". After a while it bothered me to hear too much of how others "don't understand art", because that meant they could not enjoy it, appreciate it or be inspired by it.

I believe I create art first for myself, and then for others. If it is only for me, or only for others, I am not fulfilling my quest as an artist. To solve this block in my creativity, I changed to realism a few years ago, and feel a whole lot better, with no regrets. But that does not mean there are not abstractions in my work. Realism at its best is not a slavish copy. A true artist finds a way to interpret it in some sort of beautifull expression.

My hope is that people will gather something of value from my work long after I am gone, that it will communicate something to inspire without having to think too hard.

The thought comes to mind, that if I could put something in a time capsule, for future generations, would they be able to see clearly what I am leaving for them about our human civilization?

[ironman]

Hi, I've taken the opposite approach, I continue to make non-obj sculpture and I
make it for me. What has happened is that there are less people that like or understand the work. I'll live with that.
I had a good friend once who, whenever he veered toward non-obj work,( and he did a few great pieces) would always head back to figurative, stylized work. That was where he got the oohs, ahs and the "atta boy" pats on the back. I always chalked it up to his ego and the boosting up of it.
I knew his work and him very well, and felt that he was shortchanging himself for the sake of ego gratification. I do have to admit though that it did bother me when people would say to me, "wow, -----'s a great sculptor, isn't he? He really knows his shit!"
All the while, I'm the one he came to for sculptural advice, and he always took it!
While I'm not suggesting that you're in the same catagory as him, I just wanted to pass that along.
I do think though that it's been harder to take my position, (that doesn't make me a better sculptor than you).
One other thing, I could get my work shown and he couldn't even get in a juried show!
I have to run so I've gotta cut this post short.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[RWJR]

seems to me, abstract and realism have both been here a long time, longer than anyone in this group. Has'nt it done it's thing, is there really something new to say? Maybe you can say you use a new technique, but that's not really important, like carving shit with a spoon, who care? I feel it's not important to have this need to be better than. It's more important to me to enjoy this lifestyle, making things and following the trail to the next thing to be made. It sure taste like steak to me!

[cmustard]

Ironman,
You've talked about the need to draw first. I believe the the opposite also applies, the need to be able to "see pure form"

I think that a lot of figurative sculptors get caught up in the images they are making and forget that sculpture (even figurative sculpture) is really about form and space. So no matter how pretty thier eyes may be, without a strong sense of this the piece will suffer.

I believe that looking at non-objective work and making non-objective work can be a real asset to someone who considers themself a figurative sculptor. It's a real exercise in "seeing"

[ironman]

Hi, I think that both learning to do the figure in clay and also life drawing are important and necessary for a sculptors development.
My main sculptor teacher & mentor, wouldn't let anyone do non-obj work until they learned realism first!
It's how you learn to discriminate what to put in & what to leave out, to get to the essense of what your trying to say.
I do non-obj steel sculpture but I value very highly those life drawing & clay classes that I took.
In the end it all boils down to the sculptors creativity & intelligence.
2 examples of great work on this sight.
Under "sculpture news & events", check out "Reliquiae" by Sam Spicczka.
Under "Images Gallery", check out "Forgiving Wall" by Mountainsong.
Both works are better by far than the following piece, which, although he seems to know his anatomy, for my money, he hasn't learned how to sculpt.
That piece would be.
Under "Images Gallery", check out "Wow, what a sculpture", posted by Merlion.
Not a very good piece! No taste or discrimination, just lumped everything in, so much so that, to me, it says nothing.
Now, it seems as if he knows anatomy, so I would be contradicting myself, but I don't think he knows how to SEE.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[cmustard]

Yes, I'm in agreement with you on the drawing issue and which discipline should come first. I was just pointing out that looking at and understanding "pure form" could also be valuable to those who work with the figure.

Here's a question, would it matter if you learned from drawing only, lets say, trees rather then the human form?

David

[ironman]

Hi, cmustard, I really don't think so, because all those things that you learn about, light & dark, negative space, essense as opposed to detail, etc., could all be taught by looking at a tree.
BUT, I think that the human form is harder to draw than a tree and offers more of a variation of things (such as hard-soft) in a single figure than a tree does.
The other thing is that I think we (obviously) relate to the figure more, it's us, there's a history to it, (not that there isn't to landscape) and a history of using the figure to train painters as well as sculptors. Something i'm sure, that goes back way before the renaissance.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[Thatch]

The guy I took drawing 101 from used to pound into my (our) heads, "Always use a source!". Now I really understood that in drawing. Doesn't matter much what the source is but it does help to keep your focus on the objective, after all there are all those colors and things there to confuse you.
Found I didn't need a source in pottery. Found drawing and choosing one as a source to be a very good idea in silver smithing, and in sculpture I have found that working in steel you need a damned good idea of where you are going. Ain't no free form in contruction outside of apes.
I have found in carving (removal is so different than additive) that a drawing is a great source if you are only working on a form, but if you allow the medium to influence you then it is good as a starting point only.
That does not take anything away from the ability to draw, it is just that it can be a greater influence depending on what you are doing. If it is a focus for a design concept or a schematic for your work is basically worlds apart. It is a tool and not all tools are needed or used by everyone.

Thatch

[Scout]

Learning something seems a lot better than fumbling around at the time you need it. I can draw because I love to do it. The human form is pretty basic and repetitive. Once you learn basic anatomy you can apply it to every figure. You can manipulate it as you please. I think most artists can draw anything except the human form. That scares most people. That is what I love best. Not that I've mastered it but that is what I am compelled to do. I'm working at sculpting right now and the lessons I learned in drawing are most important to me in doing the human form. So I guess if you are going to sculpt graceful, realistic bodies it would help to know where things go. That doesn't mean that if you have a model standing in front of you , you couldn't just "copy" her. But if you know anatomy already you are much freer to put your heart into it and not have to manipulate and manipulate and manipulate. I guess I'm saying, knowledge is freedom. If you are an abstract artist you probably get the feeling of grace and get to express it without the pull of realism to distract you. I admire abstract and realist art. Some more than others. We all know what we like and if it works for you don't mess with it. But what do I know? Scout

[ironman]

Hi, It's not so much that drawing the figure make you a great draftsman but that it teaches you to SEE things that the average person misses or can't grasp.
I make non-obj welded steel sculpture, but the lessons I learned in life drawing are constantly used for every part of the process, the forms and how they relate to one another, how the light and shadow works, the feeling expressed or lack of, keeping the piece from becoming decorative, does it work in the round, etc.
All depend on that "learning how to see" that is a direct result of "life drawing"
Have a great day,
Jeff

[cmustard]

I think you're on target when you say "learning how to see". One thing I'll say about drawing the figure from life, is that it forces a way of seeing which causes our perception of the world around us to look a little different. Visually, things begin to have a more prowerful presence in the space they exist, literally.

I heard a drawing class (back in the 70's) where the students would observe a model then leave the room to draw what they had seen.

[ironman]

Hi, Sure, that's called a memory pose, We also did continuous line drawings, negative space drawings and other stuff that I don't even remember but that I'm sure if filed away somewhere in that grey matter, or what's left of it!
Have a great day,
Jeff

[Thatch]

I think one of the best exersizes I ever had to do was the continuous contour drawing without looking at the paper. Most all of those I did were on newsprint and ended up as wrapping paper at Christmas, but after a while it was surprising how well you can develope you eye/hand coordination. And that is something that everyone will use throughout their lives making Art or not chopping off a finger in the kitchen.

Thinking back I figure that the eye/hand coordination helped me work on the old car that I nursed through my school years and the planning and execution skills needed for many of my projects helped me in the same area and others down the line. Gardening for instance.

Sculpting and jewelry making came easy to me, drawing I had to work hard at. The work has paid off in many areas in my life since.

Another thing that hasn't been touched on is muscle memory, though I guess eye/hand coordination is close to it. When you work hard enough on finely controlling your movements as in drawing it pays off in just about everything you do except sleeping.

Drawing is important for any artist whether or not you need it or use it in creating sculpture.

As to this seeing things, I always figured that society teaches you how to look at things and an artist has the ability to see things in a way that goes beyond the looking that recognition requires. There certainly are other professions that do this as well. Engineering, architecture and landscaping come to mind. The hunter is different from the baker, etc. Some of you might be surprised at the years of learning it took to train my pallete, nose and memory to become basically a master of fine wines. My nose gives me different and stronger signals than most people and it is a matter of honing an aspect of perception. As in other things the perception must be there to be honed but I am sure everyone gets my meaning. To hear the differences in different brands of vacuum tubes in my and friends HiFi systems takes a lot of listening but if your ears are no good no amount of time can help you. Yea, I wear ear protection all the time, just like I do eye and respitory. Well maybe not when I draw.

I got a bit OT there but it does all tie in. Sorry about the ramble but I am in a great mood having got a real nice chunk of Mesquite today to use as a pedestal.

Stay safe this weekend!
Thatch

[jim]

ralph goings started out in abstract and is now one of the great
american photorealist painters today..check him out...ralphgoings.com

jim

[Darkcloud]

... in Realism, after conceptualization (choice of subject, how to represent it etc.), the pressure is on getting the details right... in Abstraction it's much more complex... the whole process could be conceptualization or the lack of it... it's on how to get the message across, even if the artist has nothing to say, don't know how to say or don't know what the hell his doing... part of being an artist is to embrace the possibillity of being misunderstood... it is not how it is said or if others get what you said... what's more important is to try to get something across... even if it's badly said...QEI