Where Realism and Abstraction Meet
June 10, 2008
Embedded in St. Petersburg Florida’s burgeoning arts culture are two seemingly divergent trends. There are those who prefer a “Contemporary” style and those who prefer a more “Representational” style. Although it is debatable just how much of either type actually qualifies as art supporters from both sides often hold a narrow polarizing vision. The Representational artists think that the contemporary artists are trying to hide a lack basic skills such as drawing. The Contemporaries think that representationalism is out of date, stale. Who needs another painting of a tree or boat. This kind thinking often leads to a mutual contempt.
I happen to agree with both sides of the argument. Sometimes what passes as abstract and contemporary is nothing more than paint slopped on a canvas. Often times it is the random self-indulged expression of someone without any real skill. Likewise what passes for representational art is nothing more than a stale rendering copied from either a photo or life. Neither qualify as art and both can be repugnant.
On the other hand I can think of wonderful examples of both kinds. Who can avoid be taken in by the mystery of Rembrandt, the mastery of Sergeant or the genius of Henri and Whistler. Likewise, who could fail to sense the raw emotion of Pollock or not be intrigued by the color vibrations in a Josef Albers.
Modern realist David Leffel has said, and I paraphrase, that true abstraction is taking raw materials such as paint and canvas and using them to create an illusion of a three dimensional object, such as an apple, on a two dimensional surface. As true as this statement may be it sounds as though it is made from the aforementioned polarizing vision.
The work of contemporary Chuck Close seems to point to higher truth. He not only uses paint and canvas but small abstract shapes to create his portraits.
The truth is that both of these artist’s work point to the reality that Representational and Contemporary art do intersect. There is a lot of common ground. Perhaps more than either side would like to admit. Practitioners of both must learn to think in purely visual terms. As author and instructor Arthur Wesley Dow put it, “Following this thought of the oneness of art, we find that the picture, the plan, and the pattern are alike in the sense that each is a group of synthetically related spaces. Abstract designs, as it were, the primer of painting, in which principles of Composition appear in a clear and definite form. In the picture they are not so obvious, being found in complex interrelations and concealed under detail.” (Composition, understanding line, notan and color. 1899)
From a representational painter’s perspective I awoke one night and in what I understood to be a moment of clarity and wrote down these words:
“To paint representationally requires that the artist truly think visually. A tree is not a tree. It is an abstract shape whose colors, values and edges are effected by light. When the artist truthfully records these abstract qualities the result is a representation symbolic of the tree. It’s qualities and character transcend a mere rendering.”
The fact which representational artist’s must face is that our viewers don’t want us to copy nature for them. They want us to explain it. The fact that both Contemporary and Representational artists must face is the “art” lies in the explaining.
Comments
Got something to say?
