The criticism of Abstract Expressionism that you often hear is that the painterly examples are just glorified artists palettes, that any competent painter produces beautiful patterns on his palette in the act of painting. The hostile critic asks, "What's so special about that?"
Well, far be it from me to disparage palettes. If artists were smart they'd sell their palettes instead of throwing them away.
Even so, a palette-type painting (above) wouldn't be very satisfying. It's a limited form of expression.
But, come on, Abstract Expressionism is obviously more than that. Here's (above) a picture by AE artist-in-good-standing, Willem DeKooning. Okay, it superficially resembles a palette, but surely you'd agree that it's more than that.
These are carefully chosen colors that evoke strong emotions and the blended textures and color fields deliberately prompt questions about how and why color works. I haven't seen such an interesting study of color since Nolde and the Fauves.
Here's one of Frank Stella's three-dimensional Sculpture-paintings. Wow! How exciting! It's a celebration of life and intellect and the senses. What's not to like?
Here's a guilty pleasure of mine...a black and white canvas by Franz Kline. Kline took a lot of flack for being "merely" a calligrapher. He's actually more than that but it's hard to appreciate his work if you haven't seen it large, and in real life.
Kline's work is highly decorative and looks great on living room walls. That's not a Kline above, but it'll serve to make my point.
I shouldn't have to say this but there's nothing wrong with art being decorative. Matisse was decorative. The Cluny Tapestries are decorative. Decorative is fine. A work can be challenging and decorative at the same time.
While I was gathering pictures for this post I did a search for "Abstract Expressionist Architecture" and was surprised when I came up with nothing. I did find clusters of buildings that collectively seem to make an Abstract Expressionist mosaic, but no single buildings in that style.
I guess AE is a busy style that requires lots of angles and, as any contractor would tell you, the more angles the higher the price.
My guess is that the best real-world place for AE to take root is in landscaping. It's hard to believe that this landscape designer (above) wasn't influenced by that movement.
Haw! Jackson Pollack would feel right at home in this forest.
6 comments:
I'm more open-minded than I used to be, but I still think of art as primarily a craft. Without using the objectively measured qualities of capturing realism, and other traditionally studied techniques, I can't form much appreciation for art.
But you know better than me.
Anon: Wow! An interesting comment! You sound like someone who's good at what he does and has earned a right to an opinion. My own thought is that the world needs both dreamers and practical people. I used to have a great book called "The Power of Negative Thinking" which championed pessimists over optimists. I'm an optimist myself but I liked the author's description of optimism as an impairment that prevents people from adequately imagining negative consequences. He says that pessimists are the skilled people who take over after the optimist loses interest, and who actually finish the job and make things work. Haw! I can't deny that this is often true. Even so, I take comfort in the exceptions.
I'm hope you liked the last two pictures which mentioned how landscaping could benefit from the Abstract Expressionist bias.
I like abstract expressionism. I wish there were more animated feature films done in the style. The only one I know of is Ere Erera Baleibu Icik Subua Aruaren. I for one like the lack of formal aesthetic rules in abstraction. It gives you the freedom to do whatever you want in its aesthetic parameters without being strange. You could do the same thing with a more figurative style and they've done it in surrealism and pop art, like having body parts move around by themselves but it's always strange. If you paint an explosion made out of buildings people will wonder why but you can create jagged looking bursts in abstract art and nobody will bat an eye. While there is no set of rules judging what's good and what's bad, one can tell what's unusual, what has shapes that abide by aesthetic norms(which isn't as relevant as it is in traditional art) and what is structurally complex.
I like those trees by the fence with lanterns. I'm glad that abstract expressionism is of use somewhere.
GW: Even though I love AExp. it wouldn't occur to me to do a feature in that style. I still favor cartooning for features because character animation is a real stunner when its done right, and because there's so much to do in that medium that hasn't been done yet.
That picture you mentioned was a big revelation for me when I discovered it. Usually the flowers or the leaves on a plant are the interesting things. In this picture the stems and trunks are the most striking. I imagine they're fake in this photo but it's not hard to imagine a real setup like this. One day maybe landscaping will get its equivalent of Frank Lloyd Wright and he'll change everybody's idea of what a cultivated lawn or a cultivated forest, or a green-biased city could look like. I'll bet somebody could assemble a book on the subject, one that uses existing experimental gardens, that would blow everybody's mind.
Very interesting!
I agree with Anonymous. I tend to overlook (read: I don't get it) abstract art because I feel one needs to have some knowledge of the craftmanship. For example, years ago I entered 'blind' into a course of ceramic modeling and 9 months later I finally could appreciate the skill and beauty of the everyday pottery.
About Abstract Expressionist Architecture ... one would go for modern architecture (form follows function), but I think you are looking for something that displays freely the form, almost crossing the barrier into sculpture.
I think you'd be interested in examples of architecture that 'sirve no purpose', like Constructivist architecture, or Pavillions of International Expositions (maybe a mix of the two, like Melnikov's 1925 Pavillion).
Architecture that 'cannot be constructed': paper architecture, imaginary architecture (Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Étienne-Louis Boullée).
Also: movie sets (I didn't know until recently that the house in the end of 'North by Northwest' was fake!)
Finally, I think you would like to read the essay 'Ornament and Crime' of modern architect Adolf Loos. It's amazingly conservative and I love it. I laugh every time I read it.
Loos' houses are pure, simmetrical and bare; they look like legos. But that's outside. Ironically, inside it's all pomp and circumstance. Funny, isn't it?
I like your blog! it makes me think!
Linda
Anonymous: Wow! I just read the Adolf Loos argument against ornament and it was great! Many thanks for turning me on to it. I recently read an article about the wonderful carving on the handle of a Colt 45 pistol...the classic "cowboy" gun...and I remember thinking that the carving was a sad diversion from the greater beauty of the gun itself. No doubt ornament frequently detracts rather than adds. I'll look up Boulee and the Melnikov Pavillion.
You have to wonder what constitutes ornament. Frank Lloyd Wright thought he'd banished it from his Oak Park houses, but you could argue that he brought it back again by making walls with unnecessarily complex shapes. Even people who don't like traditional ornament frequently have a love for embellishment in some other medium.
Thanks for the "makes me think" compliment!
Post a Comment