MENU

(/)
←
(http://www.angelartschool.com/workshops.html)
(/SalonApplication/Salon/Home)
(http://www.arcadiacontemporary.com/contact.php) →

Previous
Next
Abstract Art Is Not Art and De nitely Not Abstract by Fred Ross
Home (/) / Education (/Education/Home) / Articles (/Article/Search)

Like 1 Share

A bstr ac t A r t I s Not Ar t and Definitely Not Abstract

by Fred Ross

Just because somethin causes you to have a feelin of aesthetic beauty does not make it a work of art.

A work of art is the selective recreation of reality for the purpose of communicatin some aspect of what it
means to be human or how we perceive the world.
The reatest works explore beauty or tra edy in life. The most profound and universal of human emotions that are timeless,
and could have occurred in the ancient past and will be experienced a ain in the distant future. The same kind of subject
matter is explored by the reatest poetry, novels, and plays. Our hopes, our dreams, our fears. Jealousy, reed, lust, ambition,
traumas from prejudice, war and even just rowin up. The cruelty possible to humanity — as well as its compassion and
idealism.

Then take any one or more of these themes, ive it expression by masterful skills for ed by the finest trainin available, from
centuries of codified knowled e of the craft. And all unified by the perfection of composition, of desi n, drawin , modelin ,
perspective, tone, color, li ht, atmosphere, and paint handlin .

That is the description of works of art.

But, it is worth repeatin , there are plenty of beautiful objects or scenes in nature that are aesthetic without bein works of art
in themselves:

 Rose petals floating in a basin.

 Waves crashing on the shore.
 A drop of dew on a flower.
 A drop of blood on a white piece of paper might be pretty and momentarily interesting
(like a Rothko painting).

These are all thin s that we mi ht experience in reality, and that actually have an aesthetic effect. But they are not art. Art is
the selective recreation of reality for the purposes of expressin an idea. Or as ARC Founder Brian Yoder has put it
elsewhere, art fictionalizes reality. The artist takes elements of reality and rearran es them in such a way that he makes
perceivable an idea, a concept, an impression of the world. In other words, it is the artist, a human bein , who is doin the
selectin — not nature and not chance.

The scenes or objects mentioned above are tan ible, and enjoyable in the here and now, and in recollection. But the real
world or the natural world simply is. Our experiences in it can become the material of artworks when they are judiciously
selected and arran ed, with all the finesse and mastery of years of trainin , craftsmanship, and learnin .

But isn't an "abstract" paintin by Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock tan ible in a similar way to the examples above? Get close
enou h to a modernist paintin and some patches of paint and blots of color are pretty to look at. Stare at them lon enou h
you mi ht even convince yourself that there is somethin meanin ful in them, like a Rorschach ink blot test. But neither a
blob of paint nor a Rorschach test is a work of art, and neither are they truly meanin ful. They aren't meant to be interpreted
as selections of reality at all. Since Clement Greenbur , modernist critics have always talked about them as "bits of" reality,
as if they had their own exalted aesthetic existence.

The usual description of a modern "abstract" paintin is that it is "a paintin about paint itself". Its subject matter is paint, or
the formal principles of paintin . The first claim is nonsensical: sayin a paintin is about paint is like sayin a poem is about
the alphabet. A poem uses the alphabet to represent words, which can in turn be used to convey knowled e or express ideas.
The second claim is just as banal. A paintin that is "about" its formal principles is, a ain, like a poem that is about rhyme,
about onomatopoeia, or about iambic pentameter. In other words, it is art as a ji saw puzzle of the lowest order. An endless
pseudo-intellectual ame, sli htly mesmerisin because of its futility — like a Rubik's cube. Even fun to play occasionally —
in jest — because it keeps the pattern-reco nition parts of the brain occupied. By this definition, a Rubik's cube is probably
the world's most successful work of modern art — it refers only to itself, it has the sacred cubic form, and it is covered with
more colored squares than a Mondrian.

If art had ever been about this kind of cerebral playin with formal principles it would have died a tedious death millenia a o.
But this is what modernist critics would have us understand is "abstract" art.

Folks, I want to point out that there is more than one meanin to "abstract". The modernists have tried to collapse two
important senses of the term into one, to bolster their (as we saw above) ludicrous claims. For modernists, "abstract" means
"non-objective" or "non-representational" or "non-fi urative". For them, abstract means that which does not have any
meanin outside of itself. In a very real sense "abstract" modern art is actually meanin less. From the modern critic's point of
view, the more meanin less it is (the more "abstract") the better. Now, this is not to say that some "abstract" shapes or blobs
of paint cannot be aesthetically pleasin . An oil slick can be pleasin to look at from the ri ht an le — no matter whether it
is in a puddle or on a prepared canvas. But they cannot say that an "abstract" modern work is meanin ful in any real sense. It
is whatever it is, a blob of paint or a block of color — no more and no less.

But truly, that is a fabricated meanin for the term "abstract." The real meanin of that term, which modernist critics have
systematically sou ht to distort, is where an abstraction stands in for somethin — in other words, where it represents
somethin , as a form of communication. The word "carnation" is an abstraction for a enus of botanical objects in the real
world. Other words refer to places, persons, objects, colors, textures, feelin s, and ideas. But no one thinks that the printed
word "carnation" is the flower carnation; or the printed word "love" is the experience called love. It is an abstraction in words
for those thin s or experiences in the real world. These abstractions are potentially meanin ful because they refer to thin s;
put enou h of them to ether in the ri ht order and these abstractions we call words can become scientific treatises or lyrical
ballads. It is the expressive intention, the fictionalizin of reality for the purpose of ivin an idea in the artist's mind a
concrete reality, that makes these abstractions fit messen ers for art.

Words are both abstractions in this sense, and also representations. Indeed, the very activity of representin somethin is a
process of abstraction. The question is what is the meanin or the value of the representation. A poem that is "about"
rhymin nonsense words is not a reat contribution to culture. Similarly in paintin , real art is when a painter can take a flat
canvas, and with paint and brushes create abstracted recreations of reality, shaped by consummate craftsmanship and a
poetic soul. Real art communicates or expresses compellin stories about the odyssey of human life; all the lea ues it has
travelled, all the lands it has visited — some lands stran e and exotic, others in our own ardens and fields. Althou h the
artist is a creator, and his worlds are painted or sculpted dreams, he dwells within nature, and dreams of her, and hopes that
from his hand somethin of her beauty will be captured.

The chances of an artist formin a successful abstraction (or representation) are reatly improved if he has some knowled e
and understandin of the thin s he turns his eye to. Any artist who rejects the aid of anatomical study, cast drawin , or
careful research from the livin form in hundreds of charcoal studies, is not unlike the poet who takes up an epic theme like
the sie e of Troy, or the Fall, while shirkin all the readin in history, mytholo y, and observation of human nature required to
produce somethin durable. A modernist mi ht declare that none of this extensive readin or thinkin is really necessary —
the poet can just intuit the whole thin , conjure it up from his ima ination. But the ima ination does not work ex nihilo, from
nothin . Like our dreams, it is made on the stuff of life: our histories, our actions, our passions, treacheries, sacrifices, acts of
love and acts of malice. Our ima inations are pre nant with abstractions — but these abstractions come from the real world,
from humanity, from nature.
Therefore, there are no more successful abstractions in art than those dreams on canvas conjured by Michelan elo
(/Artist/Index/123) , Botticelli (/Artist/Index/356) , Titian (/Artist/Index/125) , Rembrandt (/Artist/Index/92) , Rubens
(/Artist/Index/85) , Vermeer (/Artist/Index/607) , William Bou uereau (/Artist/Index/7) , John William Waterhouse
(/Artist/Index/79) , or Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema (/Artist/Index/8) .

All of those Old Masters successfully took hi hly trained skills and a mature mental vision, and used oils, pi ments, canvas
and brushes to conceive concepts about human life, composed and desi ned numerous elements drawn from tan ible,
concrete objects from the real world. They placed them in juxtaposition so as to express their ideas, and used consummately
developed skills to draw, model, paint with color, tone, li ht, and atmosphere usin their materials to recreate an ima ined
scene from reality (or dreams or fantasy or myth) that they successfully abstract in a stone block or piece of stretched
canvas.

The people who are splashin paint on a canvas in pretty patterns, or brushin it on in aesthetically pleasin color
combinations, are not doin anythin abstract. They are merely depositin little tan ible blobs of paint that do not stand in
for anythin at all.

I enuinely believe that people have derived a sense of aesthetic pleasure from some of their creations. But they are not in
fact works of art. The most beautiful of their color fields cannot compare to a field of primroses. They are not works of art, no
matter how beautiful, because there are no real abstractions in them, there are no meanin ful selections from nature, no
reat activity of mind. They may mix colors prettily as they please (most of them aim for u liness) but without selection
based on knowled e of the forms of the real world they do not make works of art — and they are not artists.

At best they are craftsmen, with shoddy skills and unmethodical trainin . Ask yourself with an unbiased mind: What Rothko
nebula or Pollock drip paintin is more beautiful than a fine Persian ru , a Faber é e , or even a finely carved picture
frame? The artificers of these three objects are craftsmen — but even they are not fine artists. Where do the le ions of
modernist smud ers, smearers, and splatterers rank?

The intense public relations and educational indoctrination by people with BAs, MAs, or PhDs after their names creates an
intense human compulsion to just o alon . All of these authorities tell us that these drips and drabs are reat works of art.
We are all vulnerable, especially durin youth, to bein intimidated by presti e. For a time, some of us can come to believe
that it is our duty to accept the proclamations of these authorities. If we do not understand, we blame our own i norance —
the alternative for many is too sickenin to think about.

So we try hard to see what we are told to see. And pretty soon, like Polonius, we see the camel, the weasel, and the whale all
in the same cloud.

Once hooked into parrotin the verbia e we are embarrassed into "seein ," we soon start to find the "better" or "worse"
versions of those splatters and dribbles that we can say are wonderful — so as not to be humiliated or snubbed by this roup
of our peers or teachers.

Are there others in the crowd fakin it? Or are they not fakin it because they have come to really believe what they are
sayin ? People tend to fiercely protect their beliefs just when they have stopped questionin . They become e o-invested in
them. If we have "seen the li ht" with Picasso and Pollock and DeKoonin and Hoffman, and have praised them many times,
it becomes difficult to reject what we acquiesced to in the past. We ive up our power of independent thou ht to the taste-
makers: the chic critics and curators in the modernist art world.
 Eventually, our beliefs about modern art can even become symbols of our way of life. Like a national fla or a reli ious icon,
the mere sound of the name "Picasso" or "Matisse" conjures up an aura of hi h Art and culture. They become reli ious icons
whose actual value we have lon since blinded ourselves to, and who act as symbols of a culture that must be defended at
all costs. Now, defendin a belief is noble, but only when the belief is based in reality. Modernism is all about underminin
those very objective standards by which we mi ht jud e and test our beliefs a ainst. Fi htin for modernism as a cause is
not revolutionary, avant- arde, or pro ressive. It is simply cuttin the philosophical branch from under your feet. It is puttin
your ar uments and your beliefs outside of an arena where they can be objectively measured, discussed, or evaluated.

Where within this story you or others may fit when you look at a Rothko or Pollock, I cannot say. But it is not likely that if you
can remove the blindfold of e o-investment, that you will not eventually come to see that even the best Rothko, usin the
most wonderful color combinations, can ever be in to hold a candle to Rembrandt (/Artist/Index/92) . And you will realize
that the real masterpieces of "abstract" art are not by Rothko, Pollock, or DeKoonin — they are by history's finest masters of
traditional realism.

(/Article/Search?authorId=26)

Fred Ross
(/Article/Search?
authorId=26)
Founder and Chairman of the Art
Renewal Center, Ross is the leadin
authority on William Bou uereau and co

author of the recently published

Catalo ue Raisonné  William
Bou uereau: His Life and Works
(https://www.artrenewal.or /articles/2010/Catalo _Raisonne_William_Bou uereau/catalo _raisonne_william

ARC
Leading the revival of realism
Latest News
(http://www.arc-store.com/)

Academy of Realist Art, Boston Scholarship Competition (/Blog/Index/9464)

on 3 enero, 2018

The Florence Academy of Art, Sweden Thank an Art Teacher Scholarship (/Blog/Index/9463)
on 2 enero, 2018

New ARC Living Artist (/Blog/Index/9462)

on 28 diciembre, 2017

Show all posts for enero, 2018 (/Blog/Month/201801)

View our Events Calendar (/Calendar/Search)

Sitemap
About Us (/AboutUs/Home)
News (/News/Home)
Recent Additions (/News/RecentAdditions)
Museum (/Museum/Home)
Education (/Education/Home)
Competitions (/Competition/Home)
Store (/Store/Home)
My ARC (/MyARC/Home/Index)

Contact Us
Art Renewal Center
100 Markley Street
Port Reading, NJ 07064

feedback@artrenewal.org (mailto:feedback@artrenewal.org)

(+1) 732-636-2060 ext 619

© 1999-2018 Art Renewal Center. All rights reserved.

(https://www.facebook.com/Art-Renewal-Center-247051022002707)
(https://twitter.com/ArtRenewalCtr)
(https://www.instagram.com/artrenewalcenter/?hl=en)
(https://plus.google.com/103209837780530093850)