Jonathan Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Music strikes me as purely abstract unless you add lyrics, maybe.I think that's the consensus out in the real world, and it's the rational position. A few of Rand's followers are pretty much the only ones who believe that music is "representational," and they're usually pig-ignorant of what the term "representational" has meant in the arts, and they therefore end up making up their own meaning, or, more often, they make up sets of meanings which they selectively switch back and forth between in order to allow music to qualify as art, but while not allowing the art forms that they don't like or get anything out of (and which Rand threw hissy fits over) to qualify.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yes, I see the figure. A female head about center looking toward the painting's right and wearing some sort of flowing gossamerish attire.Oh, so now you see the figure? Before it was only a mere "suggestion" of a figure, but now it's an actual figure?JOh, come on. It's a suggestion of a figure. I wouldn't call it clearly featured. I saw it the first time I saw Jerry's post.What the suggestion of a figure most reminds me of is something which I think is remote from anything the artist intended. I'm reminded of one of the before-reconstructive-surgery photos I saw of a woman's face, much of whose facial skin (and whose hands) had been torn off by a friend's chimpanzee run amok. The swatches of darker color, the scarcely-a-nose, the eye orb.---How would you classify rough or rudimentary figures? Perhaps as somewhere between abstract and representational?Probably depends on what it's a figure of. A stick figure, somewhere between.But what of gradations of figures such as squares, triangles, etc.? I'm looking out the window at a full moon with drifty clouds around it. If that were painted with just the shapes, not sufficient specificity to tell that the drifty shapes were clouds, does it then become "abstract"?---I wish the third painting Jerry posted would show up again. That was the interesting one to me from the standpoint of discriminating unmistakably human work from possibly chimp (with human assistance) productions.Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen Stuttle Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Music strikes me as purely abstract unless you add lyrics, maybe.Music strikes me as "abstract" in the same sense of the term as mathematics is "abstract." Should mathematical proofs therefore be framed and hung in art museums - or alternately should music be ejected from the category "art"?Ellen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts Posted June 30, 2015 Author Share Posted June 30, 2015 Chimpanzee wins $10,000 prize for abstract painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Music strikes me as purely abstract unless you add lyrics, maybe.Music strikes me as "abstract" in the same sense of the term as mathematics is "abstract." Should mathematical proofs therefore be framed and hung in art museums - or alternately should music be ejected from the category "art"?EllenI don't know. Culturally music is considered an art form and that won't change no matter how logical an analysis is. Art does not inform music as an art, but music informs art as aspect of what art is. So too all the other arts. I also break it down to primary arts and secondary. Music, literature, painting, etc., for instance, as primary. The art of medicine and the art of living and--well, that kind of thing. (The art of mathematics?). The art of architecture. Anyway, I don't see how art can be defined to take in all what is called art except as a label for all that that is considered that.This is not a discussion about whether music should be ejected.--Brantto answer your question, sure--but I don't think the brains would be there to appreciate it and to hang it (I could only stare)you may have come up with an interesting idea--I see art in so many things, why not a mathematical proof for those who can see the art in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Yes, I see the figure. A female head about center looking toward the painting's right and wearing some sort of flowing gossamerish attire.Oh, so now you see the figure? Before it was only a mere "suggestion" of a figure, but now it's an actual figure?JOh, come on. It's a suggestion of a figure.To you, it's a "suggestion" of a figure.I wouldn't call it clearly featured.I would. Take some anatomy/drawing courses, and some classes on not seeing color purely literally, and you might learn and gain the experience to see more than a "suggestion."I saw it the first time I saw Jerry's post.Heh. I don't think so.How would you classify rough or rudimentary figures? Perhaps as somewhere between abstract and representational?Probably depends on what it's a figure of. A stick figure, somewhere between.But what of gradations of figures such as squares, triangles, etc.?I'm looking out the window at a full moon with drifty clouds around it. If that were painted with just the shapes, not sufficient specificity to tell that the drifty shapes were clouds, does it then become "abstract"?Yeah, it's not an issue of black and white. There are a lot of gray areas between representation and abstraction, and it depends on who is looking at the imagery. Each person will bring his or her own knowledge and experiences to viewing, identifying and judging it.J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Can you see the second figure? It's more distorted, not a full figure, and I don't know if it's intentional. But, it's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 It's abstract if you think it is. So too representational. I personally think all art is abstraction when it is processed by the mind, even non-verbally. For me the Mona Lisa is abstract for I combine the two concepts with representational being secondary while part of the primary. As for representational alone, it's representational of the abstraction already in your head. If you're thinking of a dead model, that painting isn't being much appreciated. We can talk about this, but there's no point in arguing about it. I prefer to think of art as good and bad, great and not so great, I see it or I don't, I get it or I don't, I like it or I don't, etc. I can be instructed by esthetics so my experience might change; I might see things better. Or I can avoid over-paying for something. Someone else for any other reasons is putting art on an up or down elevator and pushing the buttons for me. I couldn't care less about that, not any more.--Brantexcept the presumption is annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 On 6/18/2015 at 8:26 PM, Brant Gaede said: My guess is the middle one. --Brant There are four illustrations. Which did you mean? The second or the third? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now