Results 1 to 13 of 14
April 10th, 2010 #1
HELP! combining Real and Abstract
Guys please help me to figure out what to do in my style... i'm a big fan of Gustav Klimt and I really like his style in painting... combining Real and Abstract Designs but something bothers me, my professor I don't know if he is right or what that Real and Abstract Painting can't be combined as one piece but really how come? Art supposed to mean to explore, to create, and to be imaginative? why it has limitations I don't believe that s****. I just want to clarify if this is acceptable and can be commercialized please give me enlightenment :')
here are some of his works please give me tips and tricks on this im really concerned if I must continue my style or just put it in vain :'(
Hide this ad by registering as a memberApril 10th, 2010 #2
here are some of his works in addition
April 11th, 2010 #3
I love this just explore and your own uniqueness will came (bad english heheh)
April 11th, 2010 #4
April 11th, 2010 #5
I don't really think there 'is' proper ways of putting artwork together. Of course there's proportion, and things like that- but you can really combine anything. Personally, I like the style you have going. It has a tint of Andrew Jones in it, but more organic and traditional looking.
April 12th, 2010 #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
Here is something you can try;
(May be very different then what you are used to)
look at images in a magazine, book, online, ect and crop around the image to find some interesting shapes.
Then draw, with (paint, charcoal, graphite, doesn't matter) that abstract cropping. Look at it and see what would fit or what it reminds you of. Then into that cropping draw something realistic into it.
April 12th, 2010 #7
Real is abstract that is in context/relates to the things around. And Abstract is real without any context or relation to the world around.
If you see a tree for the first time, you will find it completely abstract.
So theres no topic of discussion whether real and abstract can be mixed or such.
April 12th, 2010 #8
Perhaps you are looking for Symbolism?
I think your professor is wrong in the sense that realistic and abstracted elements are not mutually exclusive - they can be combined in many different ways. But you must also think about why those abstract elements are in symbolist art, since they are usually used to represent something, like symbolism in literature. You might want to look into surreal art too.
Just experiment and keep on drawing!
April 12th, 2010 #9
wow! this is amazing all of the advises are overwhelming ... thankyou i also believe that it can be mixed together abstract and real... coz i believe ART has no limitations its all in the endless imagination and creativity of men... God really is good to us all artist are gifted with this you guys put an optimistic view for me to continue my ARTISTIC REAL AND ABSTRACT PAINTING STYLE...
in our country in the Philippines no artist that I knew that there style is more on like this with GUSTAV`S Paintings... I want to be the 1st I`ll keep it up and I will make good progress
April 12th, 2010 #10
I believe your professor might be talking about the definition of abstraction or abstract. Abstraction or abstracting can contain elements of realism or representationalism, but true abstract art is non-representational. There are no elements of realism. So this may be just a matter of him trying to communicate the literal definition of abstract or non-representational.
The Following User Says Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:
April 12th, 2010 #11
Painting by nature is a process of abstracting, so your professor's advice sounds strange to me.
April 12th, 2010 #12
Ignoring most dictionary definitions of abstraction, think of it as a simplification of reality to the point of nothing but visual existence. A realistic drawing will always be at least a partial abstraction since it's an attempt to depict four dimensions in only two, and carrying this process even further automatically makes the image created even more and more abstract. For example, the human face can go from a person standing in front of us to either a photograph or drawing of that face that captures all of the details of that face to the point that we can recognize it as the original person.
Abstracting beyond this, the face becomes less personal in a literal sense, but can still retain the personality of the original model if an emotional/symbolic non-literal image is created that allows us to still recognize the original model, at least to some degree. The perfect way to NOT demonstrate this would be to draw a laughing bouncing image full of implied happiness and enthusiasm, and saying it's obviously Abraham Lincoln. This would make you look like an idiot.
The further the face is carried into abstraction, the less specific that image becomes as an individual and the more it becomes a metaphorical symbol for a certain type/stereotype/emotion/belief/generalized group in like circumstances. For example, you don't need 500 recognizable faces to get across the concept of slavery, and in such an image-rich emotionally-charged situation, you can carry abstraction to the point that you don't even need faces or even the human figure at all.
At some point in your distillation toward abstraction, you will loose all realistic imagery and end up with pure mood/emotion/ideas conveyed by only color/shapes/design (shape arrangement), and even the lack of everything, if you can pull it off in the proper context. For example, death is the crowd of mourners at a funeral, and also the total lack of all human presence in an environment that would normally be full of human life. In art, NOTHING can be something.
The imagery the OP is dealing with and inspired by consists of recognizable human beings immersed in an environment that has abstracted to the level of pure decoration without meaning other than "looks nice/interesting." This extends to the decoration of the figure's dress, making the figure even less separate from the environment, and in many cases, the figure is beginning to be abstracted into positions that can't exist in real life, adding to the abstraction even further without loosing the "realistic" aspects of the model.
Pure abstraction is the absence of all visual reality other than that which the viewer wishes to confer on it. Pure "realism" (in an artistic sense) is as close as you can get to no abstraction without jumping back to true reality. Where you want to work on the line stretched between those two points is up to you, and your decision can change second to second if you feel it's necessary to do what you want. You are the creator. You are the brakeman on your personal little street car...
No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary
Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
The Following User Says Thank You to Ilaekae For This Useful Post:
April 18th, 2010 #13