I like it; it's quite fascinating even though it's not supposed to represent a real object....
shareNot very much, no.
I appreciate art in general but the great masters of the Renaissance era that would work for a year on a photo quality canvas of a hunting or war scene impress me most.
It's alright. But, I prefer realistic then dadaism.
shareMy favorite painting(s) is Monet’s Rouen’s Cathedral which is referred to as French Impressionism.
shareI think the real talent is in networking and positioning themselves the right way.
Anyone can hang some colorful splashes of paint on on canvas in a museum and say it's a powerful and brilliant piece that blah blah blah.
Getting people to believe it and pay millions for the splashes of color, now that's an accomplishment.
My favorite modern art news story was about an artist who failed to show up with his work before a big exhibition, so there was just a fancy stand sitting there at the spot where the work was supposed to be displayed. Critics came along and reviewed the stand, thinking it was the artwork. The stand got generally positive reviews.
Haha...that's funny!
share
I can top that story!
I don't recall the artist (and this was in the 70s as I recall), but this particular artist's painting was hung upside down and no one knew it for months until the guy showed up at the gallery - and blew his top.
Yup. Some.
Of the modernist movements, I'm much more interested in the abstract art movements than the conceptualism that seems to get most people talking (Y'know, taping bananas to gallery walls and suchlike), which I think was pretty much played out before it started -- Marcel Duchamp pretty much had all the bases covered there.
But surrealism, dadaism, impressionism, expressionism, The Bauhaus, I like bits of all of that.
That's not what I was thinking of when the OP wrote abstract art. I was thinking more along the lines of Jackson Pollack and his paint dribbles. Art that isn't meant to represent anything.
Arts not a big interest of mine, but I can appreciate a drawing that isn't strictly realistic.
Sure. Pollock was an abstract expressionist. But there are lots of different movements within modernism, some of which I've listed. They're all -- by definition -- non-representative or non-figurative.
shareImpressionism is non-representative?
shareThey weren't strictly painting what they saw, so it's usually considered a precursor to the modern abstractionist movements by art historians. But, no, you're right: it's not non-representative, and it's not strictly-speaking part of the abstract art movement. But abstraction has its roots there.
shareOf course. The invention of the camera made realistic depictions redundant.
I really don't understand how anyone cannot like it. It's like being against design.
No.
shareSometimes.
share