- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:27:18 +0000
I think the reason for this is simply a lack of appreciation for abstract art (myself included). Especially since most of the time, on places like this, people are more in the interest of expressing ideas which can be illustrated through concrete objects that actually look like something rather than anything. So if people are too lazy or arrogant to bother with going through studying the properties of the things they want to draw, then I'm sorry to say, but not expressing yourself by drawing stuff that people can interpret how they want is probably a better fit. I'm not claiming I know what's involved in abstract art, but it's certainly not all the stuff you're studying so that you can depict things that are real and exist or are perceived as such; that's obviously not what abstract art is about.
Abstract art can still be representational - are you thinking non-objective art? Ulterior_Motives up there actually does abstract art, and there's definitely real things depicted in her work that can be perceived as such. Just because it's abstract doesn't mean there isn't something in it, it's just not bound by conventions that require it look like a photo. I'd think as an artist that does stylized work yourself, it would be indirectly pretty self-deprecating to knock abstract art for choosing to not look realistic.
I'm not really qualified to say much about abstraction in fine art, because I don't really have a background in it. But I used Ultie as an example because she can paint circles around the majority of the AD when it comes to realistic work. She chooses to branch out into abstraction after having a background in studying how to depict things realistically - as opposed to being boxed into only knowing how to work with anime or cartoons like most people here. How is that lazy or arrogant? How is that anything that should be derided or mocked? I just don't get where that kind of perception could come from unless you've mistaken what abstract art is.