Talk:Abstract art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral, Ethical, and Political Implications[edit]

I tried to add the following fact:

Abstract art has the advantage that it is engages the young in an activity completely devoid of political, ethical, or moral context.[citation needed] Says who? I believe it was John D. Rockefeller in response to Diego Rivera's mural.

It was removed in record time - less than a minute. I think that it is very important that artists realize that abstract art is the only kind of painting, since the beginning of painting, that does not contain political, ethical, or moral content. How can this fact be included in this article? How should this be worded to satisfy everyone?

Certainly any movement will have its supporters and detractors. It is less than complete to disallow a full disclosure of the main mention of or arguments of these movements and critics. I notice below in the discussion that a link to the art renewal movement has been disallowed. It seems to me that by the article violates NPOV.

I was set to revert it, but Modernist beat me to it. It is a non-sequitur ('has the advantage' is also POV), and of little use without a reference. If you can provide a good source, and add it in the right context, please try again. Also, remember to sign your posts. JNW 22:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PURE NONSENSE! You clearly have a lot to learn about abstract art. Give me a break! Everything and I mean everything has moral, ethical and political content and meaning. If you do not understand this, and the spiritual, and metaphysical roots of abstract art - then you have no business writing about it. I suggest you learn something about it, read a book, read Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, Gertrude Stein, Rosalind Krauss, Lucy Lippard, Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, - thats why I reverted your comment. Learn about aesthetics, energy, the meaning of color, beauty, balance, surface, touch, subtlety, power, nature, weather, emotion, - give me a break. Modernist 22:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That's why I suggest the necessity of a reference, which one presumes will not be forthcoming. JNW 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand a basic tenet of logic. That is, if an attribute can be attributed to everything, it has no meaning. So, therefore, everything cannot have moral, ethical, and political content. Sure, some of abstract art is pretty, some is interesting, etc. But pure abstract art is not historical, political, moral, ethical, etc. A painting of a brushstroke is a painting of a brush stroke. It does not depict social struggle. It is not meant to make political ethical or morale statements. Please give a concrete example of a strictly abstract painting, for example, that makes a statement about greed or intolerance. Which abstract painting by Mondrian is meant to fight injustices? Abstract art may not be devoid of content, but it is devoid of political, ethical, and morale content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Matisse, Edward Hopper and Rene Magritte are three painters who aren't abstract painters - please give examples here of the Matisse, Hopper, or Magritte that depicts greed or intolerance, or social injustice...Frankly works of art express every nuance of human experience, but every work of art does not express every human experience. Modernist (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are other forms of art that aren't political, etc, that doesn't mean that abstract art has morale content. The point about abstract art I'm trying to make is that it has been promoted by fascist groups to the detriment of other art forms because it has no political content. Purely decorative art is similar. Abstract art is not socially important except that it serves as a distraction from socially relevant works of art. I am not saying that abstract art is worthless. But people should realize that it is encouraged by fascists to keep the populace disinterested in social causes. The same can be said of most pop culture. Failure to realize that certain art forms may be injurious in some manner or other - or may serve some political purpose or other - is refusing to open one's eyes. BTW, regarding Edward Hopper: A quick google search uncovered the following:

"Nighthawks seems to encapsulate the prominent themes of American life and art, of alienation and isolation, insular reflection and self-obsession but also seemed to be able to address more universal concerns, of the loneliness of modern existence and ultimately, its futility."

With Mondrian you get inspiration for new bathtub tiling patterns and no one thinking about the futility, isolation, etc. of a fascist, profit loving system. I don't want to trash abstract art. There are interesting ideas there- mostly technical and only interesting to artists, but interesting nevertheless. Some is highly decorative and appealing, but It should have been a smaller movement -a blip. Instead it has been the best funded segment of the american art scene.

Thinking about the misapprehension that abstraction is devoid of content, I just came across the following quote by Rothko:

"I’m not an abstractionist. I’m not interested in the relationship of color or form or anything else. I’m interested only in expressing basic human emotions: tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on".[1] JNW 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothko may have been interested in expressing doom, but how well did he succeed? A black square on an orange ground does not seem very expressive to me. Compare that to Picasso's guernica which plainly shows the horrors of war. How does Rothko's square teach? What does anyone learn about doom from a black square on an orange ground? These might be good colors and shapes with which one can express emotion. Maybe Picasso's guernica would have been a stronger statement if more of Rothko's color scheme had been used. But in and of it self, is there any real moral content in a black square on an orange ground?

Abstract expressionism arose during World War II and began to be showcased during the early 1940s at galleries in New York like The Art of This Century Gallery. The late 1940s through the mid 1950s ushered in the McCarthy era. It was after World War II and a time of political conservatism and extreme artistic censorship in the United States. Some people have conjectured that since the subject matter was often totally abstract, Abstract expressionism became a safe strategy for artists to pursue this style. Abstract art could be seen as apolitical. Or if the art was political, the message was largely for the insiders. However those theorists are in the minority. As the first truly original school of painting in America, Abstract expressionism demonstrated the vitality and creativity of the country in the post-war years, as well as its ability (or need) to develop an aesthetic sense that was not constrained by the European standards of beauty.

In the end, I only object that you will not allow any part of the discussion to be included in the article. You could allow something like the following: It was after World War II and a time of political conservatism and extreme artistic censorship in the United States. Some people have conjectured that since the subject matter was often totally abstract, Abstract expressionism became a safe strategy for artists to pursue this style.

Then at least the article would be more complete. Can you really say that no artist chose abstract expressionism as a course for safety's sake? Can you really say that abstract expressionism was not backed by the wealthy for political reasons? Can you say that massive support of abstract art had nothing to do with Diego Rivera's mural in Rockefeller Center?

From here: http://www.abstract-art-information-inspiration.com/Main.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You went to the movies, saw Cradle will Rock, and now you expound on what you do not understand. Hello!!! Try getting an education and come back in four years...Someone asked Picasso why he made abstractions, because they didn't understand the paintings. He replied "I don't understand English but because I don't understand English I don't presume that millions of people just talk gibberish." Modernist (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you attack me personally? Is it that you have no real argument? Obviously, you think that you have a fine education. Others might not think so. Your writing style, ability to reason, and use of trendy language suggests otherwise. What is that "Hello!!!" supposed to say? Does it mean to suggest that I am nearly catatonic? To me it sounds like something you heard in a sitcom. Please don't tell others to get an education unless you are prepare to hear the same back. It merely shows your petty, vindictive, rhetorical, anti-logical, lazy, thoughtless inclinations. Moreover, you seem to take this personally. Could it be the case that you spent tens of thousands of dollars or more studying abstract expressionism? Did you write a thesis on the subject a la mode de Gargantua? Or perhaps abstract expressionism is your chosen oeuvre? Perhaps on finding that it may not be all things to all people, you worry about your choices? A short course on critical thinking might go a long way in enhancing your education.

Were it simply a case of "Chacon a son gout, said the lady as she bent down to kiss the pig," I would leave the matter. BTW, some english speakers are speaking nothing gibberish. Let's see if you can resist the obvious retort in favor of something less predictable. I have my doubts.

The CIA associated apolitical artists and art with freedom. This was directed toward neutralizing the artists on the European left. The irony, of course, was that the apolitical posturing was only for left-wing consumption...

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1199petr.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread of this is a bit hard to follow, as it now includes recent thoughts inserted into older discussion, and is at times difficult to comprehend who is addressing whom. It is also getting off track--the point remains, is content supported by verifiable sources? If proposed additions are not so supported, then they are apt to violate WP:NPOV, and will not remain for long. JNW (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Wikipedia is one of the best places to learn about how the world works. Basically, if one is not regurgitating the allowed version of current thinking, one's work is suppressed. Nowhere is this more easily seen than in Wikipedia. I recommend to everyone to try to publish something politically incorrect in this "people's encyclopedia." You will see just how quickly unpopular or anti-establishment speech is suppressed. Thank you for the great lesson in civics. Erase away!

An encyclopedia that makes no effort to adhere to verifiable information is a WP:SOAPBOX; there are blogs aplenty for the dissemination of opinion. JNW (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Art Renewal Movement is definitely noteworthy enough to include in this article. It is the opposite end of the pendulum for sure when it comes to contemporary art movements. It would be reasonable to show both sides of the abstract art debate. 76.10.168.53 (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract art vs Non-objective art[edit]

It is a very popular misnomer that Abstract art and non-objective art are synonymous. With Wikipedia being such an important and popular source of information these days I think it's very important that we clarify the difference here.

An Abstracted form is any form which has been derived from a natural and recognizable form, so for example, both of Picasso's forms of cubism (Synthetic and Analytical) can be considered Abstract Art, but Synthetic Cubism is objective, while Analytical Cubism is not. Non-objective art is also not necessarily Abstract art, in order for a piece to be considered non-objective, it just means that no environment, object, situation, etc from the real world is depicted. So while Picasso's Analytical cubism is technically derived from forms of the real world, their arrangement is not intended to form a cohesive vision that one would see in the real world. Pollack's work is an example of non-abstract, non-objective art, where no form that exists within the natural world has been utilized in the creation of the image, and there is no objective depiction within the composition.

Liquidlayers (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary dot com provides the following definition for abstract:
5. Fine Arts.
a. of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.''
b. (often initial capital letter) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.'
I think all three terms -- "abstract art," "nonobjective art," and "nonrepresentational art," are similar in meaning. I've made a note at the article that the terms are related. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Dictionary dot com has this to say about "nonobjective":
2. Fine Arts. not representing objects known in physical nature; nonrepresentational: some nonobjective works by Kandinsky and Mondrian.
and:
Related Words for nonobjective: abstract, abstractionist, nonfigurative

And, for "nonrepresentational" Dictionary dot com has this to say:
not resembling or portraying any object in physical nature: a nonrepresentational painting.

and:
Of, relating to, or being a style of art in which natural objects are not represented realistically; nonobjective.

and:
of or relating to a style of art in which objects do not resemble those known in physical nature [ant: representational]
What I think all of this shows is how similar in meaning all three of the terms are. Bus stop (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sure that this isn't right non-representational art is completely different from abstract but it is almost always mistaken for it.The Heakes (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thread-starter Liquidlayers is correct. NONOBJECTIVE is ~not~ the same as ABSTRACT, despite the popular perception. for the art-historical noobs, ABSTRACT is simplified but still based in part on realistic imagery; NONOBJECTIVE has no basis in realism/naturalism but is its own self, not a simplified version of a real thing. popular use does not truth make. some day, a NONOBJECTIVE article should appear with lots of crosslinking. Cramyourspam (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jacks[edit]

Joe Jacks is an American Abstract expressionist who used purely abstract techniques and i'd like him to be included in that list. If anything, he was involved in the scene at a more formative time than even Pollock was. His reference will improve this article and knowledge of him. He is under the wikipedia banner of abstract artists also. His fame shouldn't decide his inclusion, people longing on to wikipedia and looking into abstract art will get to know about another artist from the formative period of it's New York birth. It improves the article. Please comment if you object to his inclusion, don't just take it down. Thanks guys Stuedgar 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)stuedgar[reply]

Come on: it's not about how good an artist is or how much they mean to you: it's about historical relevance when writing about history. Joe Jacks is minor at best and as of now doesn't even qualify for a footnote in a history book. If you want to bring up awareness of him and his work, then publish some articles in major journals and magazines and push to get shows of his work. The hyperbolic comments like "more formative time than even Pollock" dissolve any credibility of your commentary.Dankany (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abstract art[edit]

I'm trying to add an external link to the Art Renewal Center about abstract art. Someone keeps removing it?


Direction of Page[edit]

How can we have Freshacconi removed from participating? This is clearly an abuse and is making the Wikipedia project fail. Freshacconi's points are poor and contrary to fundamental art historical scholarship. It's disgusting.74.75.112.199 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I find that many of the definitions brought up in this article are at odds with each other - including the first line. Abstract art has as its base; abstraction. Abstraction isn't necessarily non-representation. Non-representation and abstraction are not necessarily in the same bed together. While people like Kandinsky and Mondrian did often engage in what we can mostly agree on as stuff that does not represent anything, they also developed much of their work around observation of the natural world. The work they created from these observations certainly doesn't fall under the Thomas Kinkade mandate of representation - but - it does represent something.

-- I believe that the word abstract literally means to take away. Years ago, I remember learning that an abstract artist saw a curve on a figure, abstracted that curve, and made a painting with it but without the rest of the figure. This sort of idea for painting is representative. The resulting painting is representative of the curve itself but not the figure from which it was taken. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what this article is doing is mixing up definitions of Non-Objective art and Abstract Art. In most art history and/or terminology books - these two forms of art are distinct and separate from each other.

For the reader above - I'm sure the ARC link continues to be removed because the ARC proposes to limit our knowledge of art instead of expanding it. 74.136.9.70 15:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I didn't know about these guys. Very illuminating - talk about false polarities - and their website does read a lot like New Age kookiness applied to Fine Art - viz, there is a Grand Conspiracy suppressing the (visual) Truth. The funny thing is that I have recently noticed that an awful lot of stuff by their idol, William-Adolphe Bouguereau is used on Wikipedia - in particular as illustrations for articles on mythology. Probably just an accident, but could be a systematic tendency. Tarquin Binary 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't representation abstraction? No matter how accurately something represents another thing is it ever a perfect representation of that thing? No. Therefore it is an abstraction of what it is representing. Bus stop 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsence typing[edit]

Someone has typed partially random text into this article. If this happens again, or has happened in the past I would suggest Semi-protection of this page. I think it may be vunrerble due to the topic. Ultra two 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the poorest art pages on Wikipedia: to begin, it's wrong. Abstraction isn't simply the same thing as art that doesn't represent legible objects, so it's wrong to say that abstract art has been produced for forever in every single culture. Moreover, even when one tries to post about abstraction as aspect of Western culture, it gets taken down by a person - Freshacconci - who has no idea what she's talking about.

It would be nice if this could actually be a democratic page rather than an ignorant person's vanity page. It's not about you, Freshacconci. It's about abstract art.Dankany (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more info maybe?[edit]

Just wanted to say this needs alot more info. I'm trying to learn about Abstract Art for art college and i got only the minimum here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.110.108 (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is really a general-level encyclopedia. The information is often great for basic research, but for college-level research you should be digging a bit deeper (i.e. books and academic journals). Having said that, this particular article does need a great deal of work and could use some sources. That way, people coming here can get the basic info and then have a list of references to turn to. I'll make a note of this on the article (I never actually noticed that this article had almost no references). Thanks for the wake-up. freshacconcispeaktome 22:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Citing another wikipedia article is not helpful. That's kind of like citing your friend who agrees with you who doesn't have any evidence either —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.68.218 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot confirm the first sentence of the article containing the definition of "abstract art" attributed to Rudolph Arnheim in his book Visual Thinking. I have read the book and conducted an electronic search of the text on Amazon with no success in finding this definition as it is written. It seems to be a good definition, but I'm not sure if the citation is accurate. Yohamby (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MoMA supplies some information here from which we might be able to derive a definition of "abstract art". Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

I am moving part of the History section here to the talk page for further discussion because it does not discuss history.

Generally, the term "abstract art" is used in a discussion of the development of the representational fine arts in Western culture - specifically when the primacy of the represented object was transcended to the point where the work of art was no longer legible as an iconic reference to another object but was still legible as a work in its own medium: e.g., a painting is seen as a painting but not a painting of something other than itself.

The term is intermingled with other terms such as "non-objective" and "non-representation." The common usage of any of these terms refers to works of art - mostly painting and sculpture - that do not depict a visual object.

The most common understanding of abstract art is as a phenomenon of 20th century. fine art in the Western culture. By definition, art does not exist without a cultural context. (see Gardner's Art Through the Ages, Clement Greenberg's collected writings.)

Also, the first paragraph is incomprehensible. Nevertheless, this information could be useful in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and other nonsense[edit]

Instead of adding material and in the process losing valuable material - several times now; by User:Paula clare please post your intended changes here and let someone who better knows how to edit to make the change/ provided other editors concur...Modernist (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is from User: Paula clare. I have been trying to retrieve the material from the version 3 March 2006. After this a good reference list was deleted and many vandals disrupted what was the basis of a serious presentation on Abstract art. I have just written a well researched piece for a first paragraph for the History section with added references and had it removed immediately. Wikipedia is an open site where people make contributions on the basis of personal integrity and mutual respect. What a pity it is being taken over by big egos! Paula clare 19:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)paula clare (talk)

Paula clare, please respect the good faith of other editors. If you show some patience and try to understand the process, the article will be improved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that WP:AGF is important. I think everyone is trying to improve the article, lets discuss any further changes before making them. Here is a diff to the page on March 2 2006 [2] (there is no March 3, 2006) I see very similar text, three refs and the current page has better imagery to say the least, as well as a better see also section, and a similar template and the current version looks like a more succinct beginning to me, Thank you. Modernist (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • This is a contribution from paula clare to help towards improving the WikiProject visual arts article. I have read through the contributions since 2003 when the article on abstract art was started and gathered the points which had been lost in editing and vandalism. The references at the end of my article are just some of the ones I have used and more are still to be added.

Abstract art Abstract art uses shapes, colours and marks to create a composition which exists independently from visual references to the world. Western art had been, from the renaissance to the middle of the 19th century, underpinned by the logic of perspective and an attempt to reproduce an illusion of visible reality. The arts of cultures other than the European had become accessible, and showed alternative ways for the artist to describe visual experience (ref here to Gaugin, Van Gogh). By the end of the century artists, poets writers and musicians felt a need to create 'a new kind of art', to take account of the fundamental changes taking place in technology, science and philosophy. The sources from which individual artists drew their theoretical arguments were diverse, and reflected the social and intellectual turmoil in all areas of Western culture at the time.

Abstraction in early art and many cultures Much of the art of early peoples ; signs and marks on pottery, textiles and inscriptions and painting on rock; were simple geometric and linear forms which might have had a symbolic or decorative purpose. (illustration here of early abstract signs). It is at this level of visual rather than literary meaning that abstract art communicates. One can enjoy the beauty of Chinese calligraphy or Islamic script, for example, without being able to read it.

The development of abstraction Early intimations of a new art were made by James McNeill Whistler, who, in his painting 'Nocturne in Black and Gold: the falling rocket' (1872) was consciously placing greater emphasis on visual sensation than the depiction of objects. By the turn of the century cultural connections between artists of the major European and American cities were extremely active as they strove to create an art form equal to the high aspirations of Modernism. Ideas were able to cross-fertilise by means of artist's books, exhibitions and manifestos so that many sources were open to experimentation and discussion, forming a basis for a diversity of modes of abstraction.The following extract from 'The World Backwards', gives some impression of the inter-connectedness of culture at that time:

'(David)Burliuk's knowledge of modern art movements must have been extremely up-to-date, for the second Knave of Diamonds exhibition, held in January 1912 included not only paintings sent from Munich, but also from members of the German Brucke group, while from Paris came work by Robert Delaunay, Henri Matisse and Fernand Leger, as well as Picasso. During the spring Burliuk gave two lectures on cubism and planned a polemical publication, which the Knave of Diamonds was to finance. He went abroad in May and came back determined to rival the almanac Der Blaue Reiter (Kandinsky)which had emerged from the printers while he was in Germany.'

The many 'modes' of abstract art

Music Music provides an example of an art form usind abstract elements of sound and divisions of time. Wassily Kandinsly, a musician himself, was inspired by the possibility thet associative colour. expressive marks and shapes could in the same way 'resound in the soul'.(Concerning the Spiritual in Art, 1912). This idea had been put forward by Charles Baudelaire, that all our senses respond to various stimuli but the senses are connected at a deeper aesthetic/spiritual level.

The spiritual dimension Closely related to this is the notion that art can transcend the mundane, reaching a higher spiritual plane through geometry, mathematically derived proportions and symbolic colour. The Theosophical Society founded by Madame Blavatsky and others as a universal religion rediscovered the ancient wisdom in the sacred books of Buddism, Hinduism and Christianity Mondrian and Kandinsky were adherents to this particular avenue of investigation.

Cezannes questioning of visual conventions Cubism, Braque, Picasso, Leger the machine Malevich etc (this still needs writing)

Constructivism A good paragraph 6 March 2006 could be added here covering period from Constructivism and brings abstraction up to the present.

References: Alfred H Barr, Cubism and Abstract art, catalogue of the exhibition, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1936 Johannes Itten, The Elements of Colour, Van N R K S Malevich, Essays on Art, ed Troels Anderson, 2 vols, London, 1968paula clarepaula clareC 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Paula clare wrote:

Closely related to this is the notion that art can transcend the mundane, reaching a higher spiritual plane through geometry, mathematically derived proportions and symbolic colour. The Theosophical Society founded by Madame Blavatsky and others as a universal religion rediscovered the ancient wisdom in the sacred books of Buddism, Hinduism and Christianity Mondrian and Kandinsky were adherents to this particular avenue of investigation.

1. The Theosophical Society was widely popular at that time. There were many artists, writers and musicians who were members ([3]), but not all of the artists had an interest in abstraction -- so it is difficult to see a correlation.
2. Not everyone would agree that Blavatsky had "rediscovered the ancient wisdom", or that she actually understood much about Buddhism, Hinduism or Christianity. That might be better left to the article about her, and not dragged in here.
3, I always thought that Raphael and Botticelli (naming just two) did a good job of "transcending the mundane" without the benefit of abstraction. I would rather abstract art was presented as a different approach to art, and not as a superior approach to art. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula clare in answer to User:Malcolm Schosha

I have written a nearly complete article (see next writing above) on abstract art in an attempt to give a comprehensive account of the subject, as the existing one is vague and lacks any well informed introduction and references to the subject . I would welcome some constructive comments on the whole piece of writing rather than splitting hairs on minor details. Refering to your numbered notes:

1. I have not said that all the artists interested in the Theosphical Society were abstract artists. The artists who were in the process of creating abstract art, Kandinski and Mondrian and others saw theosophy, and the drawings of theosophists such as Rudolph Steiner, Charles W Leadbeater and Annie Bessant as a possible way of expressing spiritual thought and experience.This is not my view: it is the written intention of the artists themselves (Concerning the Spiritual in Art, Kandinsky) and (Abstract Art, Mel Gooding, Tate Gallery, London, 2001)
2 Theosophist Society is cited because it is absolutely central to an understanding of this strand in the development of abstract art. It has not been 'dragged in' as an incidental comment as you suggest.(The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting 1890-1985,Los Angeles County Museum of Modern Art, 1986) 'In the late nineteenth century , 'theosophy' became associated with the doctrines of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical Society. She drew on Budhist and Hindu philosophy and fragments from the Western esoteric tradition especially neo-platonism'. from Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000
3 Nothing in what I have written suggests that I or anyone else thinks abstract art is superior to figurative art or to the great art of the past.At the beginning of the 20th century , however, artists did feel that the methods, principles, philosophy underlying the art of the past were inadequate to express what they wanted to express i.e. the new ideas. That is what revolutions do. We would never have any change if we did not break away from earlier structures of thought.This does not in any way diminish the greatness of earlier painters. 'transcending the mundane' is what the abstract artists believed and said they were doing.It is very likely that Raphael and Botticelli felt they were doing the same. I believe they were! Paula clare|paula clare]]paula clare (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you give from the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says Blavatsky drew on those traditions, not that she understood them or correctly represented them. This is not the place to introduce fringe ideas about Theosophical Society influence in the arts. There is nothing in the writings of Blavatsky, Steiner, Alice Bailey, etc. that encouraged artists to move toward abstraction; and Nicholas Roerich, an artists who was certainly more profoundly influenced by Blavatsky than was Kandinski, never showed the slightest interest in abstraction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Malcolm Schosha, 1. Your argument is illogical. Kandinsky was certainly influenced by the ideas of The Theosophical Society and he interpreted these ideas in a paticular way, i.e. towards abstract forms. As you say, another artist interpreted them another way.This does not negate Kandinsky's source of inspiration. 2. By what authority do you doubt that Blavatsky, Steiner and the other theosophists understood the philosophies of the ancient books? Please give academically sound references to support this assertion. 3. If you can get the book 'The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890-1985', you can read about the subject in more detail, but here is an extract: ' It does so happen that we do know a little about the nature of the training undertaken by Kandinsky during the years preceding the breakthrough to abstraction. For example, in 'On the Spiritual in Art' (1912) he praised the paths of inner consciousness that were made known in the West by the Theosophical Society. His preoccupation with meditation and spiritual training can also be followed in the annotations and marginal comments he made in the occult publications in his library....all to be supplementad with 'the teachings of Bhagavad-Gita, the Gospels of St John, Thomas a Kempis'. paula clare (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to establish a correlation between Theosophical Society membership and abstraction, which I consider unlikely. Kandinsky being influenced by Theosophical Society concepts does not establish that actually caused him to turn to abstraction. However, if you can show respected published sources to support it, a statement to that effect could be added about Kandinsky (including the source)....but it gives no basis for re-writing the whole article. In Wikipedia everything must be based on respected published sources. It is not what you think, or I think; but verifiable sources. If you have a theory about the origins of abstract art that you want to reach the public, you should publish it -- but do not try to publish your original research on Wikipedia. In this, article, like all Wikipedia articles, the actual writing is based on a balance between all the editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider the book 'Concerning the Spiritual in Art' by Wassily Kandinsky'(1912), a respected published source? If so I suggest you read it. You seem to have got rather obsessed with this particular section.I have not written the article because of this point only. It is to be a comprehensive account of many aspects of abstract art , its many strands, influences, terms, history. I would have thought that you would have noticed that it is much in need of re-writing. Come on! it's much too interesting to keep on grumbling and picking holes! Why not some cooperation and constructive discussion towards a better article; rather than negation and hostility.paula clare (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read Kandinsky's book. It is usable as a source, but since it is a primary source, another (scholarly) source would also be needed that supports your point: WP:VERIFY (By the way, the editing process goes better if you do not insult other editors with accusations, such as calling me "illogical" or accusations of "negation and hostility". No article this important is going to get written by just one editor.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you took the word 'illogical' as an insult. I said that your '(particular) argument was illogical', not that you were illogical. In my entry, above, 14.37 10 May 2008, I provided a scholarly source ; it is the catalogue to the exhibition, 'The Spiritual in Art, Abstract Painting, 1890 - 1985', which opened at Los Angeles County Museum of Art in November 1986. The catalogue contains fourteen scholarly essays by art historians such as Maurice Tuchman and John E Bowlt. It would be great to have some comments about other sections of the essay. paula clare (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the catalog could be a good source.
I was not offended, and do not get offended easily. Also, I respect the fact that people often get passionate about subjects that are important to them. But, taken all around, editing is easier if the intelligence and good faith of others is assumed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion[edit]

Abstract art may make very prominent references to real objects... eg. the anthropomorphic forms of Alberto Giacometti or biomorphic artworks. This needs to be reflected in the abstract art article, especially in the intro/definition.

I strongly disagree with the opinion expressed by the unsigned comment above. Modernist (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions[edit]

I agree the article needs intelligent, good and verified text. The Kandinsky book is a great source as is the LA County catalog...A few years ago Hilton Kramer wrote an essay and gave several lectures concerning the influence of Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky, and P.D. Ouspensky on the early Geometric abstractionists, Piet Mondrian, Wassily Kandinsky and the early days of Modernism and abstraction in the 20th century. I spoke with him briefly about Georges Gurdjieff also. However the influence on Mondrian and Kandinsky and the other artists is essentially marginal, as really the aesthetics of painting, the basic politic of the art makes itself felt and comes through irregardless of the initial impulse or rationale. Please be mindful of WP:AGF and avoid copyright violations regarding text from other sources. I think this can be a better article. Although the Geometric abstractionists and Russian Constructivists weren't the only ones in the mix, clearly the roots of 20th century abstraction is deeply connected to Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, via Fauvism, Cubism, Orphism and even Dada and Surrealism. What is interesting is the changing definition of the word itself as the 20th century played out...Modernist (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a text[edit]

I would be very grateful if anyone working on this would read the following text to see if it might form the basis of the article. There is more now on its roots in Impressionism etc as suggested by Modernist above.

Abstract art: Wikipedia article, 28 June 2008

Abstract art uses a visual language of form, colour and line to create a composition which exists independently of visual references to the world.[1] Western art had been, from the Renaissance up to the middle of the 19th century, underpinned by the logic of perspective and an attempt to reproduce an illusion of visible reality. The arts of cultures other than the European had become accessible and showed alternative ways to the artist, of describing visual experience (see:Paul Gauguin, Vincent Van Gogh). By the end of the 19th century many artists felt a need to create a 'new kind of art' which would encompass the fundamental changes taking place in technology, science and philosophy. The sources from which individual artists drew their theoretical arguments were diverse, and reflected the social and intellectual turmoil in all areas of Western culture at that time.[2]

Abstraction in early art and many cultures Much of the art of earliest peoples: signs and marks on pottery, textiles and inscriptions and paintings on rock ; were simple, geometric and linear forms which might have had a symbolic or decorative purpose.[3] It is at this level of visual rather than literary meaning that abstract art communicates. One can enjoy the beauty of an Chinese calligraphy or Islamic script, for example, without being able to read it.

Art in the 19th century The two art movements which preceded the development of abstract art were Impressionism and Expressionism. The independence of the artist was growing during the nineteenth century as patronage from the church diminished. An 'objective interest in what is seen', can be discerned from the paintings of John Constable. J M W Turner, Camille Corot and from thence to the Impressionists who continued the 'open air' painting of the Barbizon school. Paul Cezanne had begun as an Impressionist but his aim: to make a logical construction of reality based on a view from a single point [4], with modulated colour in flat areas, became the basis of a new visual art, later to be developed into Cubism by George Braque, Pablo Picasso. Expressionism was an emotive reaction to Impressionism and drew influences principally from the work of Edvard Munch and from the Post-Impressionists.

The new art In 1913 the poet Guillaume Appollinaire named the work of Robert and Sonia Delaunay, 'Orphism'. He defined it as,' the art of painting new structures out of elements that have not been borrowed from the visual sphere, but had been created entirely by the artist...it is a pure art'. Early intimations of a new art had been made earlier by James McNeill Whistler who, in his painting 'Nocturne in Black and Gold: The falling Rocket ' (1872) , was placing greater emphasis on visual sensation than the depiction of objects. Since the turn of the century cultural connections between artists of the major European and American cities had become extremely active as they strove to create an art form equal to the high aspirations of Modernism. Ideas were able to cross-fertilize by means of artists books, exhibitions and manifestos so that many sources were open to experimentation and discussion, and formed a basis for a diversity of modes of abstraction. The following extract from,'The World Backwards' , gives some impression of the inter-connectedness of culture at the time:

' David Burliuk's knowledge of modern art movements must have been extremely up-to-date, for the second Knave of Diamonds exhibition, held in January 1912 (in Moscow) included not only paintings sent from Munich, but some members of the German Die Brucke group, while from Paris came work by Robert Delaunay, Henri Matisse and Fernand Leger, as well as Picasso. During the Spring David Burliuk gave two lectures on cubism and planned a polemical publication, which the Knave of Diamonds was to finance. He went abroad in May and came back determined to rival the almanac Der Blaue Reiter which had emerged from the printers while he was in Germany'.

By 1911 many experimental works in the search for this 'pure art' had been created. Frantisek Kupka had painted the Orphist work,'Discs of Newton'.The Rayist (Luchizm) drawings of Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov, used lines like rays of light to make a construction.Kasimir Malevich completed his first entirely abstract work, the Suprematist, 'Black Square', in 1915. Another of the Suprematist group' Liubov Popova, created the Architectonic Constructions and Spatial Force Constructions between 1916 and 1921. Piet Mondrian was evolving his abstract language, of horizontal and vertical lines with rectangles of colour, between 1915 and 1919, Neo-Plasticism was the aesthetic which Mondrian, Theo van Doesburg and other in the group De Stijl intended to reshape the environment of the future.

Some approaches towards an abstract art Music provides an example of an art form which uses the abstract elements of sound and divisions of time Wassili Kandinsky , himself a musician, was inspired by the possibility of marks and associative colour 'resounding in the soul' . The idea had been put forward by Charles Baudelaire, that all our senses respond to various stimuli but the senses are connected at a deeper aesthetic level. The spiritual dimension Closely related to this, is the idea that art can transcend 'every-day' experience, reaching a spiritual plane. The Theosophical Society popularised the ancient wisdom of the sacred books of India , China in the early years of the century. It was in this context that Mondrian, Kandinsky and other artists working towards an 'objectless state' became interested in the occult as a way of creating an 'inner' object. Geometry The universal and timeless shapes: the circle, square and triangle become the spacial elements in abstract art because they are , like colour, fundamental systems underlying visible reality.

1921-22 Many of the abstract artists in Russia became Constructivists believing that Art was no longer something remote, but life itself. The artist must become a technician, learning to use the tools and materials of modern production. 'Art into life!' was Vladimir Tatlin's slogan , and that of all the future Constructivists. Varvara Stepanova and Alexandre Exter and others abandoned easel painting diverted their energies to theatre design and graphic works. On the other side stood Malevich, Anton Pevsner and Naum Gabo. They argued that art was essentially a spiritual activity; to create the individual's place in the world , not to organise life in a practical, materialistic sense. Many of those who were hostile to the materialist production idea of art left Russia . Anton Pevsner went to France, Gabo went first to Berlin, then to England and finally to America. Kandinsky studied in Moscow then left for the Bauhaus. The revolutionary period when from 1917 to 1921 artists had been free to experiment , was now over and by the 1930s only social realist art was allowed. [5]

The Bauhaus 1919-1925 The Bauhaus at Weimar, Germany was founded in 1919 by Walter Gropius.[6] The philosophy underlying the teaching programme was unity of all the visual and plastic arts from architecture and painting to weaving and stained glass. This philosophy had grown from the ideas of the Arts and Crafts movement in England and the Deutche Werkbund. Among the teachers were Paul Klee, Johannes Itten, Joseph Albers, Anni Albers, Theo van Doesburg and Laslo Maholy-Nagy. In 1925 the school was moved to Dessau and, as the Nazi party gained control in 1932, The Bauhaus was closed. In 1937 an exhibition of degenerate art, 'Entartete Kunst' contained all types of avant-garde art disapproved of by the Nazi party. Then the exodus began: not just from the Bauhaus but from Europe in general; to Paris, London and America. Paul Klee went to Switzerland but many of the artists at the Bauhaus went to America.

Abstraction in Paris and London During the 1930s Paris became the host to artists from Russia, Germany, Holland and other European countries affected by the rise of totalitarianism. Sophie Tauber and Jean Arp colabourated on paintings and sculpture using organic/geometric forms. The Polish Katarzyna Kobro applied mathematically based ideas to sculpture. The many types of abstraction now in close proximity led to attempts by artists to analyse the various conceptual and aesthetic groupings. An exhibition by fourty-six members of the Cercle et Carré group organised by Michel Seuphor [7] contained work by the Neo-Plasticists as well as abstracts as varied as Kandinsky, Anton Pevsner and Kurt Schwitters. Criticised by Theo van Doesburg to be too indefinite a collection he publish the journal 'Art Concret' setting out a manifesto defining an abstract art in which the line, colour and surface only, are the concrete reality. Abstraction-Création founded in 1931 as a more open group, provided a point of reference for abstract artists, as the political situation worsened in 1935 , and artists again regrouped , many in London. The first exhibition of British abstract art was held in England in 1935. The following year the more international 'Abstract and Concrete' exhibition was organised by Nicolete Gray including work by Mondrian, Miro, Nicholson and Hepworth. Barbara Hepworth,Ben Nicholson and Gabo moved to St.Ives group in Cornwall to continue their 'constructivist' work. [8]


America: abstract expressionism The main movements in modern art, expressionism, cubism, abstraction, surrealism, and dada were represented in New York:Marcel Duchamp had arrived in 1915. Later came Fernand Leger , Piet Mondrian, Jaques Lipchitz, Max Ernst, Andre Breton, who were were just a few of the exiled Europeans[9]. The climate of freedom in New York allowed all these influences to flourish into a great diversity of styles which became known as the New York school. There was an atmosphere which encouraged discussion and there was opportunity for learning and growing. It became the centre, and artists gravitated towards it; from other places in America as well[10]. Sam Francis and Richard Diebenkorn came from the West coast. The rich cultural influences brought by the European artists were distilled and built upon by the New York painters, but certain of these became distinctly abstract in their mature work. Mark Rothko, born in Russia, began with strongly surrealist imagery which later dissolved into his powerful colour compositions of the 1950s. The expressionistic gesture and the act of painting itself, became of primary importance to Jackson Pollock and Franz Kline.

Abstract art from 1950s onwards There was a resurgence after the war and into the 1950s of the figurative, as Pop art came to signify the age of consumerism. However, abstraction remained very much in view ; its main themes : the transcendental, the contemplative and the timeless exempified by Barnett Newman and Agnes Martin and Brice Marden: 'Art as Object' as seen in the Minimalist sculpture of Donald Judd and Carl Andre: and thirdly a Matissian lyrical abstraction and sensuous use of colour for example Patrick Heron and Helen Frankenthaler. The distinction between abstract and figurative art has, over the last twenty years, become less defined leaving a wider range of ideas for all artists .80.41.166.203 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)paula clare (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) References:[reply]

  1. ^ Rudolph Arnheim, Visual Thinking
  2. ^ Mel Gooding, Abstract Art, Tate Publishing,London, 2000
  3. ^ Gyorgy Kepes, Sign, Symbol and Image,
  4. ^ Herbert Read, A Concise History of Modern Art, Thames and Hudson
  5. ^ Camilla Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art, 1863-1922, Thames and Hudson, 1962
  6. ^ Walter Gropius et. al.,Bauhaus 1919-1928, Museum of Modern Art, 1938
  7. ^ Michel Seuphor, Abstract Painting
  8. ^ Anna Moszynska, Abstract Art, Thames and Hudson, 1990
  9. ^ Gillian Naylor, The Bauhaus, Studio Vista, 1968
  10. ^ Henry Geldzahler, New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970, Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, 1969



--paula clare (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)80.41.130.88 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)80.41.130.88 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)80.41.189.209 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)paula clare (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)paula clare (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red ink[edit]

The above is unsatisfactory......too much red ink, too much gratuitous digression, too much basic mis-information, too much dependency on other articles. MAKE A SHORT, SUCCINCT, SELF RELIANT, TEXT. Modernist (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to all the blue linked articles in my remarks below....and several more that I haven't delineated....Modernist (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Red ink[edit]

1. Modernist, in reply to your comments above, I would like to remind you that you are just one of the contributors to this article. You have no overall authority to make these unsupported remarks. Your use of capital letters is unnecessary; please explain why you have used them.
2. Abstract art is a main catagory and needs to be very wide and comprehensive in order to make the many links with related articles.
3. I would be interested if you would give one or two examples of 'mis-information'in this article.
4. Will you explain which 'other articles' you are refering to. paula clare (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Actually I completely agree with you that I have no authority over these pages, I never said that I did, you asked for opinions and I gave you mine. I used capital letters and bold to make a point, although I would think that would have been self-evident. As to inaccuracies above I have already commented, and as Tyrenius suggests add to the article and we will see how it develops. I have worked pretty hard here, my advice to you is to just do your best. I've made substantial contributions to nearly all the linked articles in my comments below. Modernist (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this somewhat overly simplistic line of yours - In England pure abstraction is seen in the work of Ben Nicholson and Patrick Heron, John Hoyland - your strange grammar aside, - Albeit all three are British and wonderful in their own way, they are three vastly different artists, of three vastly different generations, Patrick Heron was a kind of Formalist color field painter who used Matissean imagery on occassion, and who also was a brilliant writer; John Hoyland is a British Color Field, Lyrical Abstractionist with strong roots in American Abstract Expressionism and Ben Nicholson is simply one of the most famous and widely respected British Geometric abstractionists who bears little relation to the other two. Modernist (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the above[edit]

While I haven't had time to read this through, - at first perusal it has good information - but lots of redundencies - Most of this material is already covered by many different articles, there are these articles that simply should be linked: - Orphism (art), Synchromism, Cubism, Russian avant-garde, Suprematism, Constructivism (art), Bauhaus, De Stijl, Geometric abstraction, Hard-edge painting, Abstract expressionism, Color Field, Lyrical Abstraction, Post-painterly abstraction, El Lissitzky, Neo-expressionism, Expressionism, Action Painting, History of painting, Western painting, Impressionism, Post-Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, Fauvism, Modernism, Late Modernism, Postmodern art, Monochrome painting, Shaped canvas, Minimal art, Postminimalism and others, several others..like Sculpture, with a section on modernist sculpture, and Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, Paul Klee, Fernand Leger, and many other artists who are covered in detail by individual articles. In my opinion this article should attempt a relatively economic and modest definition and position - given the scope and breadth of the related articles. Please reference all additions. I will try to carefully read the above in the next few days...Modernist (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New text[edit]

I've quickly gone over the text in the article, and I edited what I could. I think it needs references and I am concerned about any copyright violations the previous editor might have made. Please reference all material from outside sources. The text needs work. Modernist (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much of the material was plain wrong, impossibly vague, I'm trying to rewrite as much as I can that is reasonably accurate and at least not a copyright violation. Modernist (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion of Italian artists[edit]

In Italy the early abstract works (collaborations with Kandinsky and Malevich) were done by many artists: I've included only the two "school leaders" (Manlio Rho and Mario Radice) because of the relative importance given (so far!!) to italian abstract movement by international market. If you may think useful to add a specific paragraph on Italy, let me know. ArtDMaster (talk) 4 Sept 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

definition of abstract art[edit]

"Abstract art uses a visual language of form, color and line to create a composition which exists independently of visual references to the world." I would recommend consulting multiple sources for the definition. Many other sources explain abstract art to actually have a visual reference. Art that exists independantly from a visual refernce is "non-representational", not abstract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.222.195 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Would a link to http://www.redbubble.com/abstract-art be acceptable and relevant ? This is a group on a commercial site that gathers (at the moment, but keeps growing) 1800 artists and 9000 non objective abstract artworks (no registration needed to browse). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.53.229 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a nice link though. It doesn't add relevancy to an historical overview and it's basically a commercial site....Modernist (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was afraid that would be the case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.160.53.229 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Abstraction in the 21st Century[edit]

An article on Wikipedia does not need a critical summing up: it should be purely informative. This section is PO.A list of working abstract artists chosen to represent a range of ouvres, to direct readers further, is all that is necessary.(Paula Clare (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. In fact I think the section doesn't even need the listing of artists. The question that might be addressed, if there is any information on it, is what characterizes abstraction in the twenty-first century in distinction from earlier periods? Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts of figuration and abstraction[edit]

This looks to me like a violation of WP:OR, it is placed here pending the outcome of 2 AfDs, here [4] and here [5]...Modernist (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In an iconographic perspective, the concept of abstract art refers to the loss of recognizable figurative elements, which in figurative art are precisely those that allow us to read the work. However, we must point out that all art is abstract: it is a reproduction of nature, not nature itself[1].
Magritte clearly expressed it in his painting entitled The Treachery of Images, a work which is a pipe, but the text warns us: This is not a pipe.
In the Introduction to his classic book: Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (1939), Erwin Panofsky reminds us, through examples of confusion between the medieval depictions of Judith and Salome, how knowledge of historical and literary sense of the images allows to understand them or not. Thus the images of the Christian tradition are understandable only to him who dominates the biblical texts.
So all images are potentially abstract: as a representation is an abstraction of the real world, both because it is not what it shows and because its meaning is only understandable in a symbolic sense predetermined[2].
In this sense, abstract art is primarily an abstraction or loss of meaning as a loss of recognizable theme. Being the theme composed by a set of motives predetermined by tradition. The theme is the result of a consensus between the visual artist and the audience, marked by a tacit agreement about the meaning of what is being shown[3].
For example in the surrealist art can still recognize the visual content (face, body, figures in general) but there is more than clear theme. The theme loses its social character (it has in the tradition, christian for instance, in which everyone recognizes the crib or the crucifixion), and becomes the representation of an individual feeling.
The first loss of the conventional sense, art is the concept of thematic abstraction[4]: the motives or figures are recognizable, but the theme is no longer.
As part of the evolution history of abstract art, it is clear that the thematic abstraction precedes the total loss of representation. Symbolist, cubist or surrealist movements continue to present recognizable forms, although transformed, or reduced to their simplest form (geometric shapes in cubist art). The movements as informalism or abstract expressionism are posterior, in which not only the theme is lost, but the motives or the figures themselves disappear in favor of splashes of color with no equivalents in nature. This is the ultimate form of abstraction called formal abstraction[5] where not only the theme itself but also the isolated figures become unrecognizable.

In browsing articles, I came upon one called Abstract figurative. I nominated it for speedy deletion as nonsense, which was denied. Thoughts? FigureArtist (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ See: Plato, The Republic, X.
  2. ^ See: Michael Baxandall, The Eye of Quattrocentto, Oxford University Press, 1972.
  3. ^ See: Erwin Panofsky, Studies in iconology, 1939, Introduction.
  4. ^ See: Norbert-Bertrand Barbe, Iconologia, 2001, chapters XVIII to XXII.
  5. ^ See: Norbert-Bertrand Barbe, Questions About General AEsthetics, 2010.
Sorry, the article has been added to AfD, but as a neologism, not nonsense.FigureArtist (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4'33"[edit]

Does anyone know of the song "four minutes and thirty three seconds"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.76.50 (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theo van Doesburg Counter-CompositionV (1924).jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Theo van Doesburg Counter-CompositionV (1924).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Art movement[edit]

Is abstract art an art movement? I understand an art movement from a historical sense, but I am unsure if abstract art is an actual art movement. Just asking as this is categorized into Category:Art movements but i didnt notice anywhere in the article saying it is an art movement. Brad7777 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right that "abstract art" is probably not an "art movement", except perhaps if art history is looked at over the very long-term encompassing centuries, and even then I don't think the entirety of "abstract art" would constitute one "art movement". But I am not troubled with somewhat inexact Categorization as it could be helpful to a reader just perusing general groupings of types of art in Category:Art movements. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Abstract Art[edit]

It is not my intention to enter the ongoing debate about who created the first abstract painting. The addition of the list of works created between 1909 and 1913 (just posted in the article) is meant only to give examples of abstract paintings that were produced at the time; something previously absent from the article. Works by Picabia, Kandinsky, Kupka, R. Delaunay, Survage and Mondrian are included in the list. These were arguably the most important figures involved with the production of abstract art during the crucial years mentioned. Coldcreation (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malevich, Black Square, 1915[edit]

In this article, Abstract Art (and many other Wikipedia articles where it appears), the caption for Malevich's Black Square indicated the date 1913. I've since corrected the date to 1915 (if this is indeed his first Black Square). I've also moved it down from the top of the article to the Russian avant-garde section, where it is better appreciated.

"The Black Square of Kazimir Malevich is one of the most famous creations of Russian art in the last century. The first Black Square was painted in 1915 to become the turning point in the development of Russian avant-garde. Black Square against white background became the symbol, the basic element in the system of the art of suprematism, the step into the new art. The artist himself created several variants of the Black Square. All four Squares painted by Malevich from 1915 to the early 1930s developed the same idea." [...] "The last Square, despite the author's note 1913 on the reverse, is believed to have been created in the late twenties or early thirties [...]" Source

(Bold added)

"For an unrealized production of Pobeda nad solntsem in 1915, Malevich proposed a black square as a backdrop. At the exhibition 0.10, the Black Square (1915; Moscow, Tret’yakov Gal.), painted on a square canvas surrounded by a margin of white, was hung across the corner of the separate room where works by Malevich and his followers were displayed; it was announced as the essential Suprematist work." Source

Robert Delaunay's Le Premier Disque from 1912-1913 has replaced Black Square at the top of the page. Completed more than two years prior to Black Square by Malevich, Delaunay's work is considered by many art historians as one of the first important abstract paintings, along with works by Kandinsky, Picabia and others. Coldcreation (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from deleting the word 'Shape' from the opening statements.[edit]

It is included for a pertinent reason. To clarify..

What is the difference between Shapes and Forms?

• Shapes and forms are used to describe objects on paper and real life respectively.

• Shapes are in 2D while forms are in 3D.

• Shapes require height and width only while forms require depth as well to be described.

188.29.117.157 (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Abstract expressionism?[edit]

On the Abstract expressionism talk page there is beginning a discussion of merging this page into that one.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 18:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an atrocious idea...Modernist (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
screaming no. they're NOT the same. no no no Cramyourspam (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Audit[edit]

As part of the cleanup of User:Neelix's redirects we found he created 69 different redirects to this one article. I strongly suspect many of them need to be re-targeted. deleted as nonsense terms, or are to genaric to target here, but rather then have the generalists at RfD wade through them I'd like to post them here for discussion. If you think one or more should be deleted or adjusted please take action. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the following for deletion as not specific enough - primary meaning of non-objective is not abstract art.

At RfD[edit]

The Rfd discussion for non-objectivist/non-objectivism and derivatives can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Nonobjectivistically. Si Trew (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Abstract art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Art, definition[edit]

Hi Coldcreation. Thanks for your message. I'm pleased to be able to talk about this edit,I'm just getting to know the system. My edit proposes that there is a concise definition of 'Abstract Painting'as art which does not refer to the visible world. This appears to be the historical and academically supported meaning.For example, Fauvism and cubism orphism rayism and much of futurism were representational in that they showed recognizable forms. The breakthrough to the abstract was fueled by a desire to create a new way of expressing abstract, spiritual, transcendental ideas.Paulaclarewilliams (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulaclarewilliams: Are you User:Paula clare? Coldcreation (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you examples (some from the gallery section of the article) where abstract paintings or sculptures do indeed refer to the visible world (disproving your claim):
  • Robert Delaunay, Simultaneous Windows on the City, 1912, Hamburger Kunsthalle
  • Robert Delaunay, Simultaneous Contrasts: Sun and Moon, 1912–13, Museum of Modern Art
  • Pablo Picasso, Head (Tête), 1913–14, Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art
  • Henri Matisse, French Window at Collioure, 1914, Centre Georges Pompidou
  • Albert Gleizes, Brooklyn Bridge (Pont de Brooklyn), 1915, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum,
  • Joseph Csaky, Deux figures (Two Figures), 1920, relief, Kröller-Müller Museum
  • Fernand Léger, The Railway Crossing, 1919, Art Institute of Chicago
...just to name a few. Coldcreation (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulaclarewilliams: @Paula clare: you are one and the same right? Coldcreation (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did have the user name some time ago : Paula clare, but just recently I tried to log in and my password didn't work so I got a new account as Paulaclarewilliams. I would remove my old one if I knew how. All I am trying to do with the Abstract Art article is make a clear distinction between abstract art and figurative art so that anyone looking it up has a concise definition. There were many artists around 1900 who were attempting to find a way towards a new non-representational art. An art that did not refer to the visible world, that was able to express abstract ,spiritual,transcendental ideas. It was a NEW WORLD they were coming to terms with, and it was a great leap that they made into this new art. All the artists you mention were almost there, in fact the poet Apollinaire saw in Delaunay's work a 'pure painting' where colour freed from the constraints of representation and became like music.I didn't choose the examples on this page and would not have done so, because they are examples of figurative painting. Delaunay was certainly almost there though still giving his paintings titles which refer to actual objects.Picasso's work was cubist and therefor figurative, and he intentionally always kept the figure,the object as the focus of a painting.Thank you for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaclarewilliams (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your password apparently did work. You signed in and edited articles on 6, 9 and 10 June as User:Paula clare. Then, later that evening, on 10 June, you signed in and edited as User:Paulaclarewilliams, with an edit that I reverted. Why the two accounts? Coldcreation (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to my revision history page the last time I edited as Paula clare was 6 June 2017. The next time I tried to log in my password was not accepted and I asked to reset it.I did not receive a reset link on my email.I then signed in again as Paulaclarewilliams and made a new password.If you suspect me of being duplicious I can assure you my one intention is to improve this article because I care a lot about this subject and have in the past contributed to it,much of which still remains.I am not going to waste time further, battling against destructive unsympathetic comments.I would have been happy discussing points in an open fair-minded minded manner.Obviously picking up faults about how I am logged in are more important than responding to my discussion (see above).
  • The solution to the success of this article is very simple. I would like to suggest that 1. A clear definition of abstract art is made ,as compared to representational art. 2. Following from this definition, a history of the movements in art up to 1900 which led to abstract art.3.Influences of :other cultures; mysticism; music; the machine; science, on the development of abstraction . 4.The abstract artists and work from 1903. 5. The Bauhaus,European and American Abstract art. 6.Abstract artists and their work at the present time.*****......???? :) Have a good time.Best of luck.Paulaclarewilliams (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to your user contribution page, you signed in, edited and uploaded images as User:Paula clare on 9 and 10 June. I'm trying to figure out why you are not forthcoming about this. First you claim, as Paulaclarewilliams, you're "just getting to know the system", and yet you've been editing on and off at Wikipedia since January 2007, as Paula clare. Then you claim, when asked about it, that you "did have the user name some time ago". Yet you've been using that other account until a couple of days ago, contrary to your assertion that your password did not work. It did in fact work. I suggest you read WP:SIGNS and WP:Multiple accounts. As far as Abstract art, I understand that you would like to define a clear delineation between non-objective and figurative. In some cases that can be done. In others not. The artists working in abstraction were too different, with differing intentions and impetus. This is not clear cut black and white, but all shades of grey as well. That said, feel free to edit the article, but your claims and subsequent citations will be rigorously scrutinized, so too your grammar and punctuation. Note, above you wrote "Picasso's work was cubist and therefor figurative", yet his work Head, 1913-14 (see below), is obviously abstract and based on reference to the visible world. How do you reconcile this fact with your assertion that abstract painting "does not refer to the visible world". Note too the references to the natural world in the other works as well. Coldcreation (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abstract art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mimbres abstraction?[edit]

Mimbres pot c. 1000 AD with abstract faces. De Young museum

I recently added this photo to the article, to illustrate the use of abstraction in antiquity. Another editor removed the photo, commenting "That's not abstract, it's an eye."

Other comments? Looks abstract to my eye..... TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No response or comments, so I'm putting it back in. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for using that image? It's not mentioned in the text as far as I can tell. Why would it be so close to the top of the page, only the third image? What's the significance and why that particular piece/style? The article mainly talks about abstraction in the recent sense while talking about some precedents. It appears to be cherry-picking to include that image without context, particularly in that position on the page -- the reader is lead to believe that it's an important work rather than a mere illustration of something that appears abstract in our sense. And per your last edit summary, you too are edit warring. freshacconci (✉) 03:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see a reliable source that equates this pottery to abstract art. Until then, I would keep it out of the article. Coldcreation (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Style in Abstract Art[edit]

Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock all had a unique streak in their paintings and so had other abstract painters. Can we talk about this uniqueness as signature style in abstract art?

Links under discussion: https://www.artexpertswebsite.com/artist/rothko/ https://www.moma.org/collection/works/78594 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/now-computer-can-differentiate-between-real-jackson-pollocks-and-fakes-180954300/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriChinmaya (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The art of Wikipedia on steroids[edit]

"Non-figurative art explained" external link is... Steroids?! I was looking forward to that link because I'm trying to understand WHY various people say "Non-figurative" does not equal "abstract" (I have no idea on the subject personally, still trying to learn) BUT could not find any real explanation in Wikipedia (or Wikipédia or Spanish Wikipedia for that matter). Heck, life is though; please find someone qualified to patch it! 2605:B100:D16:838F:2D58:1FF5:D383:E6FE (talk)Alainr345 — Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The steroids link has been removed. Wikipelli Talk 18:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilma Af Klint[edit]

Why she is not mentioned in this topic as a pioneer of abstract art?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilma_af_Klint 82.81.35.210 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her name appears three times in the article, and one of her paintings is reproduced. Coldcreation (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

User:Modernist, I'm strongly disagree with your the cleanup message and talk page assessment revert. I don't think that my cleanup message (Too much focus at abstract art's history, too little focus about the subject itself. May be more suitable to move the content under "History of abstract art" and rewrite the whole article.) is not a valid concern. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This historical important article is both accurate and internationally focused. If you desire more information to be provided; more explanation regarding the meaning of abstraction then prohaps you actually might add some edits. You have no consensus for your WP:POV...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these information is important. However, take a look at music, it focuses not just about music history but also music's basic components and such. Maybe both of us should be bold and help improve this article, after all, that's what these clean up messages there are for. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Modernist, I've just rearranged the sections a bit and will add a bit more information later. Hopefully I've contributed something more than just tagging problems now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and rewrite[edit]

I've reassessed to C-class, as the article in its current form is pretty chaotic and needs substantial cleanup (citation tag being just one of its issues). If there is anyone here willing to collaborate on cleaning up and rewriting content, please let me know. I'd be happy to coordinate a group effort. Some of the more pressing stuff:

  • scope of the article, historically and geographically (currently, it is primarily focused on Western art and I just removed unsourced content on Islamic art; it might be a good idea to focus just on Europe for the purpose of this article as there is substantial risk of fundamentally misrepresenting the meaning of abstraction in East Asian Art and other non-Western cultures, not to mention it reinforces colonialist mentality of "center" and "periphery")
  • methodological framework (here it would be helpful to think of a bigger narrative to approach the diversity of abstract vocabularies in European and American art, perhaps by loosely following and critiquing institutional frameworks including MoMA, Barr's 1936 Cubism and Abstract art exhibition and then 2012 Leah Dickerman's Inventing Abstraction, etc.)
  • organization (this is closely related to the points above)

These are just some preliminary thoughts. I would love to continue the conversation with those interested in improving this important WP:WPVA article. Ppt91talk 19:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abstract_art&oldid=1216966796"