6 ms·

Why not? It seems pretty trivial to me to say that art can encompass any creation of designs or patterns for pleasure, including scribbling and doodling. And sc

Why not? It seems pretty trivial to me to say that art can encompass any creation of designs or patterns for pleasure, including scribbling and doodling. And scribbling and (some) doodling are pretty unambiguously abstract. Ergo, abstract art. It's hard for me to imagine a more Philistine sentiment than dismissing something as art on the grounds that, if a child can do it, it must not be art.

vectorEQ 8y ago
thank you
mc32 8y ago
I think the argument is it’s possible something looks abstract only because while wanting to draw something somewhat realistically or representative one ends up drawing abstractly for lack of ability to do more representative art. In other words reoresentative ability is forcing you to draw in a certain way where if you could you would draw a different way. I’ve seen kids frustrated because their “abstract art” didn’t look realistic enough and wanted an older kid or person to help them “draw better”.
beaconstudios 8y ago
> And scribbling and (some) doodling are pretty unambiguously abstract. Abstractions of what? Surely to have an abstraction, you have to have a subject. If I'm drawing lines randomly, I'm not rendering an abstraction of anything.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  "Abstraction", in the verb sense, is the process of taking a subject that isn't abstract and making it more abstract. But that isn't the only way to produce an abstract image. For example, see abstract expressionism.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    true, but my point still holds for pure abstractions - drawing random lines is not creating a representation of an abstract concept. Unless you want to argue that any output you produce represents the abstraction of your brain's state (ie the random lines represent the firing of the neuronal pathways that are causing you to choose that specific arrangement of "random" lines), but that's pretty meta and outside what I think the common conception of abstract art is.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      Your point seems to rest on holding to a different definition of "abstract" from the one I was originally using. Which is (unintentionally, I presume) a subtle form of putting words into my mouth and then arguing against those instead.
      - beaconstudios 8y ago
        It's not a form of putting words in your mouth, it's called misunderstanding, miscommunication or "talking past each other". I'm operating from my understanding of the word and you are operating from yours. It seems there is a difference between the two. I can't be putting words in your mouth if we're using the same word with different understandings of what it means.
        bunderbunder 8y ago
        Right, I had noticed the misunderstanding, which is why I initially responded by clarifying my terminology. "Abstract" is jargon in art, so it doesn't necessarily work exactly the same way there as it does in vernacular usage.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
apersona 8y ago
I personally don't mind abstract art and believe that it's fine as an art form. The only issues I have are the proponents of abstract art doing 2 things: (1) Presenting abstract art as a worthier pursuit than illustration, as if somehow abstract art is harder or more unique than all other art forms. You can feel the vibe from fine arts professors who look down on illustration majors. (2) As a subject of study, it feels like they're not willing to learn techniques like perspective, anatomy, etc. There is no progress on actual learning. I think if you want to be truly creative, you should be willing to learn techniques and then seeing how to break them, so that you KNOW why something feels like X. Instead it feels like they "look down" on it without ever trying it. I think people have connected the "we are superior" vibe with the lack of development of skills and started to feel what this connection is called: pretentiousness. Unfortunately people have also connected the actual art styles to that and dislike the works just because of the art style as well.
posterboy 8y ago
Abstraction means to take the essence of something and try to display that. Figuring out how a crayon does look and feel is nothing like that. if the abstraction is taken from art itself and resubmitted self referentially as art that shows the performance (e.g. Pollock) or design and perception of proportions (e.g. Mondrian) then that reuqires having done some art before - I'm not totally convinced of their motives, but for sake of argument I would assume they underwent a considerable thought process of refinement. If a child does it as a novelty, it might achieve the same effect, but often not reproducibly - and reproduction is a huge factor of craft. Very correctly, if a child can do it, there's no high barrier to the reproduction. Although kids are free and random enough to be a huge source of inspiration.

vectorEQ 8y ago

thank you

mc32 8y ago

I think the argument is it’s possible something looks abstract only because while wanting to draw something somewhat realistically or representative one ends up drawing abstractly for lack of ability to do more representative art. In other words reoresentative ability is forcing you to draw in a certain way where if you could you would draw a different way. I’ve seen kids frustrated because their “abstract art” didn’t look realistic enough and wanted an older kid or person to help them “draw better”.

beaconstudios 8y ago

> And scribbling and (some) doodling are pretty unambiguously abstract. Abstractions of what? Surely to have an abstraction, you have to have a subject. If I'm drawing lines randomly, I'm not rendering an abstraction of anything.

bunderbunder 8y ago
"Abstraction", in the verb sense, is the process of taking a subject that isn't abstract and making it more abstract. But that isn't the only way to produce an abstract image. For example, see abstract expressionism.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  true, but my point still holds for pure abstractions - drawing random lines is not creating a representation of an abstract concept. Unless you want to argue that any output you produce represents the abstraction of your brain's state (ie the random lines represent the firing of the neuronal pathways that are causing you to choose that specific arrangement of "random" lines), but that's pretty meta and outside what I think the common conception of abstract art is.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    Your point seems to rest on holding to a different definition of "abstract" from the one I was originally using. Which is (unintentionally, I presume) a subtle form of putting words into my mouth and then arguing against those instead.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      It's not a form of putting words in your mouth, it's called misunderstanding, miscommunication or "talking past each other". I'm operating from my understanding of the word and you are operating from yours. It seems there is a difference between the two. I can't be putting words in your mouth if we're using the same word with different understandings of what it means.
      - bunderbunder 8y ago
        Right, I had noticed the misunderstanding, which is why I initially responded by clarifying my terminology. "Abstract" is jargon in art, so it doesn't necessarily work exactly the same way there as it does in vernacular usage.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

apersona 8y ago

I personally don't mind abstract art and believe that it's fine as an art form. The only issues I have are the proponents of abstract art doing 2 things: (1) Presenting abstract art as a worthier pursuit than illustration, as if somehow abstract art is harder or more unique than all other art forms. You can feel the vibe from fine arts professors who look down on illustration majors. (2) As a subject of study, it feels like they're not willing to learn techniques like perspective, anatomy, etc. There is no progress on actual learning. I think if you want to be truly creative, you should be willing to learn techniques and then seeing how to break them, so that you KNOW why something feels like X. Instead it feels like they "look down" on it without ever trying it. I think people have connected the "we are superior" vibe with the lack of development of skills and started to feel what this connection is called: pretentiousness. Unfortunately people have also connected the actual art styles to that and dislike the works just because of the art style as well.

posterboy 8y ago

Abstraction means to take the essence of something and try to display that. Figuring out how a crayon does look and feel is nothing like that. if the abstraction is taken from art itself and resubmitted self referentially as art that shows the performance (e.g. Pollock) or design and perception of proportions (e.g. Mondrian) then that reuqires having done some art before - I'm not totally convinced of their motives, but for sake of argument I would assume they underwent a considerable thought process of refinement. If a child does it as a novelty, it might achieve the same effect, but often not reproducibly - and reproduction is a huge factor of craft. Very correctly, if a child can do it, there's no high barrier to the reproduction. Although kids are free and random enough to be a huge source of inspiration.