Art

>what is the visual equivalent of Bach or Mozart?
I think it's an unanswerable question. Let's not waste our time

It’s certainly not this shit.
>dude the equivalent of beautiful music are awful scribbles made by some hack
What a fucking bloated ego to say his work has anything to do with their music. It’s literally disgusting

What should we call abstract art from Veeky Forums?

He put a lot of thought into his work, with guiding principles for the more formal elements of his pictures (focal points, coloring, general shapes etc.) You can see his writings on his own work and it's clear he thought a lot about it.

In terms of his actual process, I don't know whether or not he did sketches for all of his early work (represented by the first image I posted) but I do know he did for his later work - I've actually seen at least one of his sketches for the second image I posted at my local museum. Kandinsky, like many artists of the early avant garde, was educated in the classical tradition, so he had the ideas of careful sketching and planning drilled into him early.

This work was said by Kandinsky to have been inspired by a concert of Schoenberg, a modernist composer.

At what point does it stop being considered as abstract art? Can Mark Lombardi's works be considered as abstract?

None of this is art.

It's a difficult question. All art, ultimately, has an aspect of abstraction in it; it's all really just material things organized by thought to resemble something they clearly are not. The work of Lombardi could be said to not be purely abstract because it includes text (which is decorative/symbolic, not purely abstract) and explicit reference to outside factors; however, this work by Lissitzky, which includes text and whose title ("Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge") explicitly references the contextualizing factor of the Russian Revolution, is generally considered to be abstract art. Personally, I find that genre lines are only really useful as stylistic descriptions, because they always fall apart under tough scrutiny.

But why is it not art?

El Lissitzky was a Russian artist who worked in the same avant garde circles as Malevich. He at first identified himself with the Suprematist movement, but later distanced himself to pursue his work with what he called 'prouns', which were attempts to expand the Suprematist vocabulary beyond two dimensions to explore the third.

It's pure art

>Abstract art captures understanding done in process, the immediate sensation of thought, and our attempts to organize it.
Did they really succeed with this project, though? It seems like they (e.g. Malevich) painted basic colors, which actually kind of gesturing towards pure concrete sensations rather than a abstraction.

>McDonald’s is just as good as any other type of feed. All food is equal

Of course not. They failed utterly.

Internet culture in general seems to be some flavor of neo-dadaism

While this painting wouldn't traditionally fall under the description of 'abstract art, I find that exploring the career of an artist like Mondrian, who often worked in series, requires a longer view.

I think you're missing the point here

I want to see more of this

I think you enjoy fast food too much

Not saying that. There's a clear difference between the skill of a beginner painter and someone like Rembrandt. But they're both artist and they both create art. The same way abstract artist are artist as well. I think people out too much emphasis on what is and isn't "art" when they should be arguing and reasoning what separates "good" and "bad" art.

Dada? It's a somewhat abstract art that's a reaction against commercialism.

no, more discussion of internet culture and art. /pol/ art threads suck

That depends on your sensitivity to it, which may change over time. I find a lot of meaning and value in these works, but I've spent a long time considering them. An important and very valid critique of abstract art is that it abstracts away from reality so much that it holds no value for the uninitiated viewer who is unaware of its theoretical basis and particular context. This is especially ironic given the largely socialist leanings of early abstract art.

However, I would recommend to you that you consider what actually being shown in these pictures, and proceed from there into your own imagination. In Malevich's work, to use his example, there are two basic elements - geometric shapes, mostly rectangles, especially in these which I've posted. A rectangle does not exist in any physical sense in the real world - it is a description invented by reason and logic to describe space. All geometric shapes, in fact, are. However, we all have a sense of them; despite how we may all imagine something slightly different in the case of 'tree' or 'person', based on how we grew up, we all imagine the same thing when we imagine the shapes. In this way, geometric shapes capture thinking in process - a set of rationality tools which humans use to understand and describe the world. In life, when we see things, we never see them as they truly are, but rather as an abstracted impression of their visual presence, which is itself just reflected light. By avoiding the world as it 'looks' to us, Malevich's geometrical abstraction gets at what it really is to us - that is, a thought process understood by reason and logic.

>dont make painting i dont like

...

...

...

This is my personal favorite of Mondrian's. It is austere and economical of means, but manages to contain variety and detail. The work of Mondrian is primarily that of contrast, each part defining itself by its relationship to the rest. Consider the the cross shaped corner separating the huge, dominating monolith of red from the smaller block of blue. This one intersection carries in it so much tension - the crossing of two lines, the near meeting of two parallel shapes of clashing colors, and the two white rectangles of clashing vertical and horizontal orientations hanging off of it. It's as if this one point holds on it the weight of the entire image, the origin of axes spinning off in every direction and the center of the formal elements' conflicts, and it's all held in the crossing of two delicate black lines.

Nothing off the top of my head, although a quick google of "internet culture as neo-dada" brings up plenty of results that don't seem to be too bad.

...

>Despite culture, upbringing and simple personal taste resulting in our vastly differing personal opinions on food, music, attractiveness, architecture, etc, MY taste in art is objective REEEEEEEEE

This painting, "Broadway Boogie Woogie", represents the last phase in Mondrian's work before his death in 1943. It was painted after his move to New York after the outbreak of World War II, and attempts to capture the lively, electric energy of the city and its culture. Its vibrant colors and playful treatment of shape, which he used to treat with such austerity, calls to mind the urban environment of New York; streets, cars, power lines, etcetera, full of direction, energy, and bustle.

Given that Schoenberg sounds like this

youtube.com/watch?v=x2vX8JXfKEc

I think it sheds little light on my question about what naturally sonorous and mathematically beautiful music would look like

What are you talking about? Geometrical shapes are concrete. 'Man', 'trees' and so on are abstract, because they are concepts.

youtu.be/KAExa9P7hME

I'm seriously not trying to be rude or uncultured here but abstract art to me looks like the kind of stuff you hang in a hallway and forget about, like its there just to occupy physical space. In my opinion Impressionism is the best form of art when it comes to emotion. It captures not the photogragh of the reality, but a photograph of the photograph of reality allowing the artist to frame the world as his emotion. Thoughts on this?

>if I just put 'MAAAAAAAN' I don't have to formulate an actual argument.

He asked why is it not art, not if it is good art.

I like surrealism and futurism, they are the last historical avant-guards that we can define "art". They still depicted understandable objects and the deformations wer e useful to show an emotion.
Pic related, Umberto Boccioni's chaos of city entering in the house. The sense of disorder in a modern city, the growing technological innovations and the fear-love for progress are very common themes in futurism. Btw, they loved speed. A lot of paintings and sculptures tried to depict speed.

>none of these are food
t. u

I don't find that rude or uncultured. Abstract art is a difficult thing, it's hard to be confronted with a flat wall of hovering shapes and colors and find anything in it.

This previous post gives my basic advice. Another thing I'd recommend is that you look into the work of surrounding artists who experimented with abstraction in their art. The painter of this picture, August Macke, was part of the same avant garde group as Kandinsky, "Der Blaue Reiter, based in Munich.

...

...

...

>Can't into Schoenberg

pleb

I actually personally adore Schoenberg but that's from years of serious listening, a tendency to be easily bored and a composition hobby on the side. Schoenberg isn't something you can put on in the background and everyone will think "those are nice sounds" even though the underlying architecture is incredibly sophisticated. That's what I want to see the visual equivalent of.

A: abstract art is the opposite of popular schlock, it’s more like the French restaurant that you paid 50 dollars for 5 scallops arranged in an exceptionally pretty pattern and coated with rich demi-glazes. Fine art as a whole is a niche interest, that’s the polar opposite of McDonalds.

B: food and art don’t correlate. A burger diminishes in value when more people try to experience it, as there’s only so many mouthfuls of food to go around. The Mona Lisa, however, doesn’t depreciate in value the more people look at it.

bump

Abstract work CAN be art, and can be very good art.

But not every abstract work is good, or even art.

Artsy shit is still shit, not art.

What about Webern?

...

Not so much but Berg and Dallapiccola are absolute lads. I feel like Webern is the beginning of the end; the trend more towards conceptual compositions instead of pure music.

abstract art, as well as most modern art from impressionism to pop art, is the Dionysian view of beauty. full of disorder and chaos. it is also the subconscious. the view of the human condition that is deeper than the surface.

t. Nietzschwit

But honestly, a lot of his guiding principals were just autism and stuff he made up.
>vertical lines are cold and harsh while horizontal lines are warm and welcoming
>yellow and blue is the greatest color contrast next to black and white

it's kinda why I like Mondrian better, because I could see at least some of the formal qualities of aesthetics in the work, rather than the whatever Kandinsky did.

different artists dealt with different concepts and notions, tryed to do different things, abstraction allowed them to deal in things beyond the figurative, but all that has been procesed now, figurative art is comming back because the abstractions and meta-concepts have been integrated, anyone who studied art history kinda sorta gets them, theres nothing much left to say about it, so it all congregates into new forms of figurative art that allready encompases abstraction and surreal elements in it, that already pressuposes things like conceptual art and pop-art, art today is like speaking in parables, most artists use recognisable elements but put them together so they say something less obvious, or to make something unarticulated articulate, abstract artists realy had a luxury of being the first to dismantle things like that, but that couldnt last long, you hit limits realy fast that way