Before AP Art History had even begun and before i started to study artists like De Kooning, Pollock, and Rotho, what came to my mind when i saw their work at first was "How is this considered art?" With paint splattered on a canvas with pollock using just ordinary household paint, Rothko's blurred rectangular blocks of color, and De Kooning's woman which looks very sloopily done, everyone's first thought is this is not traditional art as we know it, this is an atroscity. After doing much research and have studied the artists listed above you realize there is a real talent and intellect behind the works. This paintings allowed for artists to express their emotions freely and independently. It allowed for the viewer of the artwork to connect with the piece itself as Rothko had wanted. These artists brought to our attention what nature is and what occurs in it. What we take away from such abstract expressionists are a break from tradition and the old masters and the establishment of a new art form that allows for free expression and for the viewer to have a spirtual and mystical connection with the artwork.
Quote of the Day:
"The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves." Willem De Kooning
Thank you for explaining a bit more about what makes abstract expressionist art, art. I actually enjoy the colors and interplay of shapes, squiggles, and other forms. It is only the solid colored canvas, or a canvas with just one blip of tiny color painted all by itself, that I still have difficulty appreciating as "art".
ReplyDelete