So back to painting. When it comes to totally abstract work, it's mostly a miss for me. If you appreciate some structure, like myself, please raise your hand.
Even with my own work, my 'abstract' paintings aren't full blown
'throw all caution and lines to the wind'
type of abstract. Just that it's lacking something to recognize within the painting. I'm thinking it through though as I go along.
I started thinking about this when I had a reaction to some works in a gallery I visited recently (neither gallery nor artist will be named). My reaction was to tell the world that those paintings were a piece of crap. Random sh*t on a canvas doesn't do it for me though a Jackson Pollock, for example, would.
The difference?
How I imagined it being done in both technique and scale.
The creation of a Pollock work is like a workout as he is always moving around the canvas. Sometimes he would think about where the dribble of paint or brush stroke would be and of what color and sometimes he would just let the drops fall as they may.
However there are works, mostly on a small scale, that look like complete crap and is taking up valuable gallery wall space. It's one thing if a kid in kindergarten is just playing around and it might be cute if you know the kid. Yet if someone who considers him/herself an artist is just smearing paint on canvas, I just want to hang my head. Was the artist pressed for time so they threw something together? It's something I personally can't make sense of.
Ultimately, it's a matter of perception
If the artist is happy with it, and there is someone in this world that would want to pay for it, fantastic.
Me, however, will continue to put thought into what I paint and how it's painted. Everyone is welcome to like, love, hate, or not care as they will.
