Not exact matches
In previous shows, I was loosely alluding to those
things but primarily talking
about abstract painting.
And as early as 1943 the principal tenet that was to distinguish the new abstraction from earlier, pre-war
abstract art was clearly formed, as evidenced in a brief «manifesto» of the rising movement crafted by Mark Rothko, Adolph Gottlieb, and Barnett Newman for The New York Times in response to a negative review of the new style: «There is no such
thing as good
painting about nothing.
From Matisse she turned her attention to Mondrian, whose abstractions taught her «to start with the
thing itself», then to Monet's expansive water lilies, then to the Futurists («There's lots I don't like
about Futurism... but it was certainly moving towards
abstract painting»).
We can say that it is
abstract, non-objective,
about colour and form and our perception of those
things, but we live in an age of plastic, so much more baggage to look at
paintings with.
It's
about failure or ambition and all these other
things too, but it's not actually an
abstract painting made with
paint.
But each of the artists» works are also
about the misjudgment of a real environment — a real chair made out of special rope (Campana); a box made of terracotta and glaze (Cherubini); a lamp made out of found metal (Coolquitt); an
abstract painting titled after a transsexual (Ferris); and collage, deceptively flat - looking, made from among other
things, feather and beads (Alvarez).
The young
abstract artist Gabriel Orozco knows a
thing or two
about painting, though touch isn't yet one of them.
One of the great
things about the fairs, particularly Art Basel Miami Beach, is the amount of mid-century
abstract painting that is shown, much of it geometric.
This is the marvelous
thing about a good
abstract painting, a good
abstract painting.
Although she doesn't
paint abstracts Audrewy Kawasaki always strikes me as very effeminate, in part because of her subject matter, but it's also how she goes
about presenting and rendering
things.
KSWithout belaboring that «end of
painting,» I guess one of the
things that interest me
about that work of David's, and it's the same
thing I see in yours, is that it holds together the
abstract and the pictorial, the process and the image, in a way that I also see in Georg Baselitz and other people.
The great
thing about DIY - ing
abstract paintings is that even an unskilled individual can do this project.
I've never seen Hernández's
paintings in the flesh, but I've heard a lot of good
things about the Spanish artist mostly known for his large scale
abstract painting and his interesting (and contrasting) use of colour.
But whilst I agree with that ambition of «more
abstract», I am much more ambivalent
about the idea that certain
things that could be done in figurative
painting can not now be done in
abstract painting, and that by so restricting the scope of
abstract painting it will inevitably come to fulfil that ambition of «more
abstract».
This is the
thing that impresses me most
about the field of
abstract expressionist
painting and sculpture.
I think I am still confused
about «space» in
abstract painting, I get it when applied to
abstract sculpture, but it would be really helpful if you could do your
thing Emyr, and post a
painting that you felt operated spacially and one that didn't.
The great
thing about the outgrowth of exhibitions showcasing and examining emerging contemporary
abstract painting is that the novelty is starting to wear off.
One more
thing about the World: it «contains» all kinds of
things: good
painting, not so good
painting,
abstract painting, not -
abstract painting (wait: maybe there's no such
thing!)
Well, there is or has been an idea that space in
abstract painting is
about «interval», i.e. across the canvas, as per your aerial
thing, like distance on a map.