What is an Abstract Painting vs Nonobjective or Non-Representational?

In the art world, as happens in many other worlds, there may occasionally be a discussion so esoteric that the participants question everything from semantics to physics to psychology. That kind of discussion arises from time to time about the nature of contemporary abstract painting. Is it abstract or nonobjective or non-representational?

It doesn't sound like a particularly juicy topic. But, it seems there are critics, painters, and innocent bystanders who have felt the heat from these discussions. No painting can actually and fully portray any other object or idea or feeling - so, all art is abstracted to one degree or another.

People who think about art prefer objective definitions in sometimes subjectively decided areas of reference. The easiest approach to this kind of discussion would be to outline a set of characteristic variables for
differentiation of abstract painting from nonobjective and non-representational painting. Then ascribe some markers along each continuum, and finally, do the math.

After all, if science can reclassify Pluto as a non-planet, then art people should also be allowed to digress in areas less defined.

The problem develops on many points: 1) Does the artist portray or suggest any images of real-world objects? 2) Does a painting use any depicted structures that approach a form even roughly geometrical? 3) Does the artist use characters - letters, numbers, symbols - in the painting? 4) Is the character of line such that it qualifies as writing or script or the outline of some real thing 5) Can we determine if a form or suggested form was intentionally rendered by the artist, subconsciously rendered by the artist, or mistakenly rendered by the artist? 6) Are patterns or near-patterns a meaningful coding or language sequence? 7) Is a paintstroke or other application itself a form, or depiction of another form. And so on.

Granted. If you get into a discussion like this it could shake your interest in talking about art. God strengthen any artist who would push through these questions, especially if emanating from a tense mob. Of course, Van Gogh had his soul and Jackson Pollock had his unconscious.

That artists and critics seek, or create, these kinds of reasons and definitions speaks to the wish to understand abstract painting as opposed to nonobjective or non-representational painting. People willing to offer some simple platitude or rule of thumb in these discussions may suffer burning at the stake or a trip to the gulag.

Many artists just don't talk about it. They may be shielded from it by dealer or friends. Some artists affect their own nonverbal language to ignore or escape the heat. Others speak long and loud with the assurance that they are expected to be passionate and not fully rational about their work. Others DO what they DO - they just get IT - they got IT when their favorite rolemodel artists did IT - and they still get IT. Whatever "IT" is is just either gotten or not gotten.

This is especially tragic for the viewer or critic or collector that can never fully let go of the idea that "art must mean something". It must have some objective message! It must be about something! It's meaning is deep in the colors and rhythms of the work! The artist has depicted his/her feelings. . . yes, even a particular, pure feeling that we can locate and define!

Many artists do not want to paint meaning. These artists purposefully exclude objective, logical, semantic or philosophical features from their compositions. In the matter of feelings, most artists will say something as to the extent that their feelings were part of the creative process or the final product. Whether their feelings ARE the object of depiction is really almost impossible to discuss.

Discussion is usually a good thing, but most of us want a little closure after a discussion - as to our thoughts or beliefs about a topic. When you ask art people about their resolutions on a topic you will hear a variety of ideas. Some of these ideas come off as tentative and somewhat simplified explanations. Which is what I will give now.

Abstract Painting intentionally contains a representational version, however modified, of an existing form or fragments of forms taken from the real world. Nonobjective Painting is any composition devoid of intentional suggestion of any real world objects or cognitive messages, but possibly containing geometric or patterned displays. Non-representational painting is the equivalent of nonobjective painting.

There I've said it. That is the closure on the topic that I prefer and defend. You can also gain some information on this by reading

Article Source: http://www.ApprovedArticles.com

Tia Marks, Executive-Editor

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

# of Ratings = 1 | Rating = 5/5