:
Originally posted by Doug
Someone (not you, morphius) with a better background in art please correct me if I'm wrong , but it's my impression the fact that the art works in this thread have things recognizeable as people, animals, and concrete, everyday objects means that this is not abstract art.
I also think that creating photorealistic recreations takes technical expertise, but I don't see anything artistic about it.
|
I may not have a "qualified" art background (I only took art in year 9, I took music for GCSE instead) but in my view, if someone said a work was "abstract" I'd think "things about it aren't 'normal' (for want of a better word)" - for example, parsnips with human faces having toy mice removed by caesarian section...
I define "art" as anything that a person has obviously spent time over. Morph might think that Mark Ryden isn't a very good artist as he doesn't paint "realistic" things, but who cares? I wouldn't be able to paint like that for years, maybe ever. And truth be told he probably CAN paint still lifes and suchlike (after all, all the "abstract" work, as Doug pointed out, is actually very realistic, just rather surreal) he just finds them dull as hell and wants to stretch his talents a bit. After all, if all I did was sit painting fruit all the time I'd have given up drawing years ago.