Wednesday, May 3, 2017

chromatic abstraction

Personally, I am not a fan of artists such as Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman. For example, Rothko's Green and Maroon is just two solid colors and a small stripe in between. As a viewer of this art, I get no satisfaction or deeper meaning that I feel inclined to interpret in order to enjoy the piece. The hues in this piece are intended to bring the shapes to life, but in an art exhibit, I probably not look at this piece for more that a few seconds, if that. Barnett Newman also operates his works in this way. For example, his Vir Heroicus Sublimis is a red hue with a few interrupting lines called zips in there. I do not see the creative expression and artistic ability required for these works, even if they are statements in order to stretch the definitions of art.

4 comments:

Savannah Watermeier said...

Vir Heroicus Sumblimis was boring too. It was a completely red canvas with 2 off centered lines. I am not an artist at all and even I could paint something like that. I also don't see how it showed action or movement. It was literally just two lines that the artist dubbed "the zip." I liked Spring by Hofmann better. You could actually seem some plants coming to life in the green background. The splatter paint helped create a growing garden effect. I thought it was very pretty to look at and imagine.

Dylan Bryan said...

I agree with Joseph. Many of the works by Newman and Rothko seem too simple. While this simple portrait was their goal, it does not seem very difficult to create one of these pieces of work. In regard to the elaborate or detailed works of other artists, these pieces seem to not even be worthy of comparison. In Newman's Stations of the Cross for example, it simply looks like a white canvas with a few lines. Abstract expressionism attempted to create movement without using the human form, but simply throwing lines on a background color does not seem to me to be the best way to do so. I give more credit to sculptors like David Smith who utilized light refraction of his works to create an extra element of movement. This is harder to accomplish with a painting, but I still believe movement could've better been portrayed than it is in pieces like Newman's Vir Heroicus Sublimus. Pollock's Lucifer is at least a little more interesting to look at, even if for the most part he just splattered paint onto a canvas. I suppose it is what the artist perceives the subconscious to convey and that, like in most existentialist work, leave a lot up to interpretation, but some of the pieces just seem a bit lacking to me.

Rickeia Coleman said...

Spring and Lucifer were much more visually appealing than the works such as Vir Heroicus Sublimus. Spring and Lucifer both had abstract elements that one could interpret for themselves and the different colors made everything for interesting. I also disagree that the plain art with plain colors meant anything. I just didn't see the appeal in plain pictures. My favorites were surrealism and pop art because it had a sense of creativity and new techniques beyond what was available for the time. I enjoyed looking at the art but I just couldn't cling to the plain pictures at all.

Brooke Williamson said...

In my opinion, the most visually appealing pieces we studied this year were from the pop art unit. Whether it be Warhol, Linchenstien, or Hamilton, these group of artists used color, graphics, and design to enhance their artwork and critique social components all in one. I believe Ms. Quinet really displayed how different artists and techniques can be reflective of different societal conditions. When we discussed expression, abstract, or pop/media art, the times were relatively more free and relaxed in terms of freedom of speech and expression. However, contrastly, some of the more refined and less demonstrative pieces were emblematic of confined social conditions. Such an interesting correlation we all first hand learned!