"Charismatic", 22"x 30" Watercolor.
We want to know what you would like to see. As our LIVE ZOOM workshops are becoming more and more popular, we are doing a survey to find out what you would like to see and learn. Our survey only takes a few minutes and will help us decide what to offer going forward.
Is it an abstract?; you tell me...
I was recently having a discussion with a fellow artist about my ever growing interest in abstract art. I think it's pretty obvious to most of you that I enjoy painting abstract pieces and I seem to grow even more in love with Abstractions with each new painting. That is not to say that I don't also enjoy painting my more traditional landscapes, and floral pieces that I spent half of my life learning how to paint. Literally almost everything I see is mentally processed through the lens of an artist, even things that to most people, would be considered unattractive or boring. To me, however, they are shapes and colors and values and textures that can be rearranged or embellished in an effort to create an exciting work of art.
During our discussion my friend told me that most of my landscapes would fall within the category of an abstract piece of art. The painting above, "Charismatic" is undoubtedly a floral that is painted in a loose and somewhat interpretive style. It's obviously representational but some artistic license was employed with the colors and the design to make the painting more interesting and entertaining. I don't think that anyone could look at this piece and not see a floral with bright colors and expressive brushwork. Is it an abstract painting?
When I asked my friend to explain why he thinks that my loose and traditional landscape and floral paintings are abstracts he told me that you would never see items in nature the way that I portray them in my paintings. That's correct because I usually exaggerate shapes and values and sometimes use what most would consider unconventional colors rather than using local colors. His comments aroused my curiosity so I decided to research the definition of "Abstract". I referred to the Oxford Dictionary and this is what I learned:
"Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence".
That certainly describes my painting "Charismatic". In a physical or concrete existence sense you would never actually see this floral as I painted it. Then, out of curiosity, I decided to take things one step further so I looked up the term "Abstract Art" in the Oxford Dictionary and learned this;
"Artworks that do not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead use shapes, colors, forms, and gestural marks".
Again, I cannot argue with that definition when looking at the the above painting. But the definition would apply to almost all of my floral and landscape paintings. They are undoubtedly painted to depict the reality of my subject but in a somewhat artistic and suggestive loose manner as opposed to absolute representational detail. According to the definition of "Abstract Art" however; the loose manner in which I paint them and the absence of absolute representational detail would put them in the Abstract Art category. If that is the case, maybe I've always been an Abstract Artist and just didn't know it. Many of the pieces that I paint are what I refer to as "Stylized Interpretations". I also sometimes refer to them as "Representational Abstracts". I like to incorporate enough information in the painting for the viewer to readily identify with the subject but also show them an interpretive and artistic piece of art by altering and embellishing the colors and the design elements to make the painting more intriguing and thought provoking. Needless to say, I wanted to know what the Oxford Dictionary had to say about that. Here is what I found;
"A Stylization is a visual depiction which represents an object without a full attempt and accurate representation of an object's realistic appearance. This can include simplification in shapes, lines, color, pattern, surface, details, functionality, and relationship to other objects in a scene."
That definitely describes my Stylized paintings but from what I can gather, the Oxford Dictionary clearly suggests that any painting that is not totally representational, to the tiniest of realistic detail, is a piece of abstract art, including my loose and stylized floral and landscape paintings. Maybe I am misinterpreting what they are saying but that's my take. So the next time that you paint something or view a painting by another artist, ask yourself, "Is this an abstract?" If it's not a photographic and fully detailed representation then just maybe it is an abstract.
This has certainly changed the way that I view art nowadays, even my own paintings. Apparently, abstract art is everywhere, even in places where people are not aware that they own a piece of Abstract Art. In fact, you might be an Abstract Artist and not even know it.
Like I said, that's just the way that I see it. So I guess that my friend was correct, at least in a technical and definitive sense. Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
