A few weeks ago I was teaching a workshop in Oregon
and asked the students in the class to give me some topics for my blog –
sometimes the pump does need priming!
Well they came up with several ideas upon which I will gradually
cogitate…and record herewith my various cogitations!
One question took my eye: “is it okay to be somewhat
representational? How abstract does
“abstract” have to be?
There is no clear cut single definition of abstract art –
the term can mean anything from totally non-objective, derived from a
mathematical formula, to simply abstracting a section of a scene (whether it be
figurative, landscape or still life) and manipulating the shapes and lines and
values to create a great design. Many
painters (including Picasso) have pointed out that in a sense all art is
abstract since it’s not “the real thing” – except, I suppose, Duchamp’s
“Fountain” which, of course, wasn’t ….
Here is the link to the image:
in case you don’t
know the piece. I do wish it were okay
to just show the image on the blog…but some of these places are fussy and
litigious these days that even an image that is being used in a totally
educative “fair use” way can now suddenly lead to an invoice. And of course it’s NOT the original artist
that would get the loot, but rather the photographer of the art work – or, even
more likely, the agency that bought up the rights to the photographs! But I don’t want to get into ranting!!
Many painters and psychologists have also pointed out that
while probably have rearranged and modified (from the original) any visual
images that we create, they have actually come from somewhere. Everything is inspired by something – the
images we put together may come from a movie we saw last night, or from a book
we read as a child but there is always a starting point.
So abstract doesn’t have to be all that abstract to be
abstract – or abstracted from. Like
fashion nowadays or rather, the lack thereof anywhere away from a fashion
center like NYC(!), anything goes!
But the question also implies that maybe representational
art is no longer acceptable…..
And that is a valid possibility. I would say that while the public at large
has always preferred to buy (more or less) representational art for a domestic
setting, the critics and the curators do seem to swing from Abstract being in
and Representational out to the other way round – like those old weather
indicators with little people that came in and out according to whether it
would be fair or not – you couldn’t have them both at the same time. Abstract art has had a huge revival in the
last few years starting with a big retrospective at MOMA in NYC a couple of
years ago and a more recent exhibition a year ago called Inventing Abstraction
1910-1925 about which they wrote:
“In 1912, in several
European cities, a handful of artists—Vasily Kandinsky, Frantisek Kupka,
Francis Picabia, and Robert Delaunay—presented the first abstract pictures to
the public. [This show] celebrates the centennial of this bold new type of
artwork, tracing the development of abstraction as it moved through a network
of modern artists, from Marsden Hartley and Marcel Duchamp to Piet Mondrian and
Kazimir Malevich, sweeping across nations and across media.”
It’s always been okay to produce representational art, since
abstraction was “invented” it too has continued to be popular and re-invented
with several different “movements” over and over. With exhibitions like those at MOMA and
many other museums, we’re now at a place where we can begin to asses which
abstract pieces will stand the test of time and which will be more stepping
stones in the development of the art form.
Within the quilt world, of course, abstract was always “in”
– especially with pieced work. Since the 1980s there has been a huge resurgence
of quilting and many people begin their quilting careers with traditional
pieced patterns and then move onto create their own patterns and images. I think the advent of fusing techniques has
really encouraged much more representational work. Fusing makes representational work much easier – it’s very
difficult to be very representational with piecing unless one really fractures
the image to a very complicated extent and, in a way, those images are then
more abstracted anyway.
I do think there seems to be something of a dichotomy right
now in the quilt world as to styles and not between traditional and art quilts
but rather it’s a dichotomy over technique:
there is one school of people who feel that only piecing is truly
acceptable (and it’s easier to piece abstract work than it is to piece
representational work). They feel that
fusing techniques should probably be considered as fiber collage rather than
quilting and they definitely look down their noses at representational
work! Other quilters feel that any
techniques that involve putting together pieces of fabric in any way together
with some stitching qualify that work as a quilt. And if you get jurors or curators that do
have a strong bias one way or the other, obviously the show they put together
will reflect that.
I am much more of a mind with Ellington who said that there
are only two kinds of music: good music, and the rest. If the piece is strong and beautiful and
worthy of being looked at and made of fiber then it’s good quilt art , if it’s
a boring or ugly mess – then it’s not.
And another good quote which is very apposite to this blog - this time from Matisse::
“Never ruin a good
[piece of art] with the truth.”
Please do weigh in with your comments!!! All comments are delightfully beheld by this
blogger! And, if you have been, thanks
for reading! Elizabeth
And now for a nice cuppa tea……