Abstract as an art form amazes me. Coz it’s more like “organized” mess. A mess that attracts viewers and where every viewer interprets it in a different manner. And where the artist does not have to thrust his / her point of view on the audience.
While Pollock may paint, I prefer to use my camera. I try and find some form in mundane subjects. Like in case of the above image L 2 R (a). Splatter of paint on a rusted metal sheet (b). Bark of an old tree (c Top). Believe it or not, upper trunk of a young coconut tree and (d Bottom) An old wall.
Certain conservative photographers do not accept abstract as an art form. I would say give abstract a try. Easy as it may seem, it really requires some patience and an eye to hunt for a subject where none exists…
10 comments:
Sorry Vimal, my mind is too basic to understand the finer points of abstract art.Just goes above me.
Haven't you folks heard of JP Dutta?
That movie guy?
What of him??
Jackson Pollock was known as the Founder of Action Painting -- art is fluid and happening --yes, Vimal --Abstract is one of the highest forms of creativity --and that you have it, we are not having an iota of doubt....
Jackson Pollock was known as the Founder of Action Painting -- art is fluid and happening --yes, Vimal --Abstract is one of the highest forms of creativity --and that you have it, we are not having an iota of doubt....
Jackson Pollock is to Action Painting what Vimal Parmar is to....U folks know what?
This is Correct - Isey PulLOCK kiya Jaaye!
By the way - Pullock Paneer was and will always remain one of my favourite dishes!
Vimal bhai
You are now taking we downtrodden into the world of the untreaded. Paint yes ... I can speak of industrial coatings .. coal tar epoxy, polyurethane, zinc sulphide coatings.
But this subject is as TAS puts it is over our heads.
I have my doubts, you will turn out or should have the Harry Houdini of Paint and painting.
vims,
went thru the details in the net. was impressed with a few things pollock did:
- rejected the traditional style of painting in canvas and easel.
- rejected paint brushes and used drip form, knives, wood, hands...just about anything but brush
- rejected the need to name a painting- he ultimately numbered his paintings and did not super-impose a thought on the viewer. i remember once painting a mango in school and getting one mark less because i had not given it a title- Mango!!
But ultimately I have to be true to my not very artistic sensibilities. Are these paintings really that great and do they deserve to fetch millions of dollars? and i am not saying this because the painter himself was an alchoholic and ultimately died in a car accident while driving under the influence of alchohol. As one art critic, and satirist Craig Brown, said about these paintings "astonished that decorative 'wallpaper', essentially brainless, could gain such a position in art history...
While that comment is a bit uncharitable I think the artists earn beyond what they deserve. While those painters, whose work middle class people like me understand, struggle to make a livlihood and live in penury. It is a "market" which an untrained man like me is not destined to understand in this life.
You brought a new perspective to the blog and helped me to expand my general awarenes. Thanks for that and may you find a few more off beat topics like these for us.
Thanx for your comments Arun...
What i understand about art is as follows:
You have arrived if someone is willing to buy your painting, photograph or anything on those lines. How you get some one to buy - marketing or sheer style - does not matter. Period.
Personally, this is how i go about: As a serious amateur photographer, i shoot what i love. If you like then its a bonus for me. But if you don't then it just does not matter ... I will still continue to photograph what i like... But then i am not afraid of criticism and willing to learn new techniques...
Sometimes, an art form / style may not immediately pick up. But over a period of time it becomes popular. Graffiti for example is a form of expression. It can be dubbed as vandalism or art - both at extreme end. Right? The content of graffiti and the location will determine what it is.
I value an artist more than a critic. End of the day someone paid millions for that wallpaper and it even got a critic's attention!! Right?
Just my thoughts...
Dear Vims,
There is one point I totally agree with you. It is better to be an artist/photographer/ writer/ performer rather than a critic. But we have not necessarily placed the job of a critic in the right perspective.
Cynicism is a different thing and criticism is a different discipline altogether. Critics have a role to play in the evolution of any art form.
However I still prefer to be a third grade performer than be a first grade critic. So point well taken.
The second point which you raise is precisely where I have a problem and differ with you. That is when you say, “ You have arrived if someone is willing to buy your painting, photograph or anything on those lines. How you get some one to buy - marketing or sheer style - does not matter. Period.”
This is what puts the hardworking, talented but eternally struggling artist, photographer, writer, manager to a great disadvantage. His problem is not his quality of output but the way it is perceived by those powerful people (read lobby) and their ability to manipulate our (the markets) thinking process.
I have a strong feeling that there is a class of people who can actually manipulate our thinking and therefore our process of judgement.
You will agree with me that “arriving” though important is not the end of the journey. The right way of going on with the journey is probably even more important.
Post a Comment