PDA

View Full Version : Non-objective vs Abstract


paintergirl
05-22-2003, 11:16 AM
Could one of the residents here in this forum explain non-objective vs abstract art and their differences to me? I had never known there was a difference till someone mentioned it recently. My thanks in advance for your insight ...





~also cross-posted in the debates forum~

Fagan
05-22-2003, 12:26 PM
As I understand it....non-objective .....looks like absolutely nothing...just color or form.

Abstract...can look like something but pushed in a different way.

I am sure someone can put that in a more cohesive sentence. structure. *GRIN*

Pete Hubbard
05-22-2003, 12:56 PM
This is post I made earlier on the same subject.

There are two terms in 20th century art that are often confused.

1) Abstract

2) Non-objective

The term abstract means there is something being depicted but the treatment has altered its appearance. Like in cubism the apple table and chair are depicted but abstracted.

The term non-objective means there is no object being depicted. What you see is the paint, its surface and possibly designs or patterns. Or in the case of minimalism, the paint, it’s surface and no pattern.

Titles: I once had an art teacher who did large colorful minimalist paintings. And he played the horses. Those were his true passions. The names of race horses are even more spaced out then paintings. This guy would do these large colorful painting and name them after race horses. So you see this big ‘ol canvas and it would be called “Bucket ‘a Bolts” or ”Sky Writing”. For some reason it made it a lot more fun.

paintergirl
05-22-2003, 02:22 PM
Many thanks Pete and Fagan. I had cross-posted this in Debates also and was provided with a very good link by Mallory that also aids in this point...
http://members.cox.net/mrsparker2/formsPPP.htm
The waters are less muddied now :D

I think the confusion arose from seeing abstract used as a blanket term for a variety of styles that still held some distinct differences...thanks again!

surreal
05-22-2003, 08:28 PM
Hi~

Here is more feedback from one of my favorite websites dealing with art terms and art history information, which is:
http://www.artlex.com/ :

abstraction and abstract art - Imagery which departs from representational accuracy, to a variable range of possible degrees, for some reason other than verisimilitude. Abstract artists select and then exaggerate or simplify the forms suggested by the world around them. The paintings of Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973) and Georges Braque (French, 1882-1963) as well as the sculptures of Henry Moore (English, 1898-1987), Barbara Hepworth (English, 1903-1975), and Jacques Lipchitz (Russian-American, 1891-1973) are examples of abstract art. Wassily Kandinsky, (Russian, 1866-1944), was one of the first creators of pure abstraction in modern painting. After successful avant-garde exhibitions, he founded the influential Munich group Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider; 1911-1914), when his paintings became completely abstract. His forms evolved from fluid and organic to geometric and, finally, to pictographic.


nonobjective art - Artworks having no recognizable subject matter (not recognizable as such things as houses, trees, people, etc.) Also known as non-representational art. Also see Abstract Expressionism, abstraction, abstract art, and aleatory and aleatoric, likeness, realism, and representation.

']['REMBLE
05-23-2003, 08:36 AM
well, where's the non-objective forum??
*looks around and blinks*
'][':D

surreal
05-23-2003, 08:39 AM
LOL at Trem.
:D

paintergirl
05-23-2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by ']['REMBLE
well, where's the non-objective forum??
*looks around and blinks*
'][':D

LOL

Thanks for the good read and link Nina :D

rapolina
05-23-2003, 10:09 AM
thank you for this thread and posts, it's very interesting!

ciao, rapolina.

RickS
07-10-2003, 03:18 AM
Yes, very interesting. I have now learned that I've recently completed a non-objective work, and will soon complete another, but what would one call a painting that dipicts nine spheres against a blue background?:)----I've got to know where I stand in this ever so confusing art world...:)

Surreal, you seem to be 'up' on this stuff, help me out :)

Rick

surreal
07-10-2003, 10:02 AM
Hi,
If the spheres aren't representative of anything in particular, but are used merely as shapes to form a composition, it would be considered a non-objective piece.

Keith Russell
07-10-2003, 10:53 AM
Good morning.

If one looks closely enough (microscopically) at most things, they often resemble non-objective artworks.

Now, could an image created to look very much like one of these micro-photographs, validly be referred to as 'non-objective'?

K

surreal
07-10-2003, 10:54 AM
Keith,
You are too much.
;)

paintergirl
07-10-2003, 11:04 AM
..we are an abstraction of reality?

RickS
07-10-2003, 01:10 PM
Oh my god, this is just too funny! :)

Thanks much Surreal, I think I'm beginning to learn things hear... It's like being in art school~ only you can pick and choose the subject that's important at the time. Hummm, so much to learn...

Rick

Tamana
07-10-2003, 02:01 PM
and a lifetime to learn it in!!

timelady
07-10-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by RickS
but what would one call a painting that dipicts nine spheres against a blue background?:)----I've got to know where I stand in this ever so confusing art world...:)

A solar system? :) Sorry, just to prove that even in non-objective work your audience will probably see something. :D

Tina.

RickS
07-10-2003, 04:56 PM
Oh, Timelady, you're so cute!~and I love that tiara! :)

RS

muchfoolishness
07-10-2003, 07:37 PM
im confused now
abstract and non objective are mutually exclusive?
non objective is a branch of abstraction?

can non objective art be abstract?
can you abstract that which is not objective?
can the non objectivity be an object itself?
is non objective what happens when you abstract too much? :D

and in a post modern context where there is no agreed meta narrative what am i talking about?

*falls over*
painting is much more enjoyable than understanding painting

RickS
07-10-2003, 07:45 PM
Hummm, and I thought I was starting to understand this stuff. :)

The Confidence-Man
07-10-2003, 08:59 PM
Is there any real difference?

What if I cut a blue circle out of construction paper and glued it to the wall, and then painted a picture of it?

Is the final work non-objective?

How could anyone know?

If it comes down to whether or not we can recognize an object in the work, what if it's an object you've never seen in your life?

If there is any difference, it seems to be one that occurs in the process of painting and not in the work itself - that is, whether or not we have the intention to paint a given thing.

muchfoolishness
07-10-2003, 09:04 PM
and if you are any good :p

JordanCarty
07-10-2003, 11:36 PM
Ho Ho Ho...

Now I know what to say when someone says, what style do you paint in?

I will say with a straight face and an inner giggle, Well I paint non-objective nudes and when I feel way good I paint abstracts. (I can't wait for someone to tell me the nudes look darn objective to them)

Seriously I have never really felt at all sure about where the line is in any of this. My nudes are very real, most viewers think they are all painted from live models (except the occassional doctor who knows better) they are never totally anatomically standard, but the non standard parts are never beyond the believable, except maybe as to color. In the past I have said I painted abstracted nudes, but the abstraction is mild and not always obvious.

Anyway, how about a little non-objective? Where does non-objective end and something else begin (at the opposite end from pure abstraction)

JordanCarty
07-10-2003, 11:44 PM
Hum...seriously how far do you have to get from "real" for it to be non-objective?

Tamana
07-10-2003, 11:52 PM
And to think it all use to be simply art.

Tamana
07-12-2003, 09:53 AM
Jordon: Welcome to the basement @ WC!!! I've enjoyed your posts and love nude work. When do we get an opportunity to view some of yours? Looking forward to it. :)

I will say with a straight face and an inner giggle, Well I paint non-objective nudes and when I feel way good I paint abstracts. (I can't wait for someone to tell me the nudes look darn objective to them)

paintergirl
07-12-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Tamana
And to think it all use to be simply art.

It still is simply art Tam...it just seems we need to label things, compartmentalize everything.
I had thought that anything that left the structure or exaggerated of representational fell under abstract...did not know that abstract could be sliced and diced so many ways as well! :D

You know, when I started painting 5 years ago- it was all just art. Then as time went on , the more I learned, the less I knew. But, what draws us to it, the initial creativity, inspiration, the process involved, is still the base of what is important. The rest is just gravy :D

paintergirl
07-12-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by JordanCarty


I will say with a straight face and an inner giggle, Well I paint non-objective nudes and when I feel way good I paint abstracts. (I can't wait for someone to tell me the nudes look darn objective to them)


he he he :D

Tamana
07-12-2003, 03:30 PM
Julia :cool:

Would you like compartmentalization with that? ;)

paintergirl
07-12-2003, 04:22 PM
yeah , yeah ...I know...I needed more coffee...lol

RickS
07-12-2003, 07:21 PM
Speaking of Abstract and non-objective, I have a favorite artist from that arena~ Richard Diebenkorn. There is a book out now titled, appropriately, 'The Art of Richard Diebenkorn'~ he's very inspiring to me...

RS

Tamana
07-12-2003, 09:03 PM
'The Art of Richard Diebenkorn'

See?!! It IS supppose to be THAT simple!!

JordanCarty
07-12-2003, 11:08 PM
Tam, I hope to have mastered the scanner in the next week, one of my spawn have offered their services to that end.

Tamana
07-12-2003, 11:44 PM
what ELSE did you have them for? ;) Looking forward to next week.