Regarding Art and Abstraction...

[Arvestaked]

When referring to a work of art you cannot say that something is "somewhat abstract" or "very abstract"; that simply does not make any sense. A work of art is either figurative or abstract. Picasso and Rembrandt painted figurative. Clyfford Still and Mark Rothko painted abstract.

post scriptum: This was influenced by a post I read.

[Anonymouse]

- 1 for lack of content

+4 for effort and point across

And the fans wanna hug the author.

[sleuth]

in my point of view abstraction is close to absurd,( it gives enough freedom of interperetation though)...

Picasso was one of the greatest enchanters,agitator and initiator of surrealism.Picasso's vision, neither realistic nor abstract (golden midium ).succeeded in blending observation and intuition in single impulse.Picasso can be anything but abstract artist....
...ART= vision + mission....

Abstarct= vision

[sleuth]

ARVY as i promissed....

it's my point of view...sorry buddy i couln't send it...lol was tooooooo longgggggggggg...

The art of XX century has produced numerous kinds of abstract compositions. Indeed, abstract art has become overwhelmingly dominating by the end of the century. One of the reasons could be the objective tendency to the emancipation of artistic creativity (partially inspired by the appearance of new technologies), when everybody feels right to try making art without any regard for the tradition of presenting artistic creativity as a "God's gift" and the property of elite. Abstract art often seems more accessible to an unskilled person desiring to quickly get some result without years of training and perfectioning. Just take a computer and apply the standard image-processing tools --- or take a heap of random things and create an installation. However, in most cases such an attitude leads to anything but art, and the creators, well feeling their failure, have to invent special conceptualizations to justify the existence of that rotten junk, which only a mad millionaire may pay for. Popularity gets dissolved in vulgarity.

But there is another side of the problem, the necessity of graduality in development and comprehension. Thus, a child has to spoil many sheets of paper and pencils before it comes to any comprehensible drawing, or writing. In the same way, the humanity has to produce tons of junk before discovering what was worth to produce. In a folded manner, this historical selection has to be reproduced in the work of any artist. Thus, one might recall a film of Picasso's raw sketching for a future big painting, showing the admirable work of a great master, his numerous rearrangements of lines, with almost imperceptible adjustment of graphical intonation. The same process can be observed in the work of many great poets and writers. Few artists can create anything instantly, in a finite form, without several trial variants. And even when such a creation apparently takes place, the preliminary trial actions are still present, being folded in the artist internal preparation for the work.
It's about abstract....
But i think we have different opinions about surrealism... get ready my next post will be about surrealism... and belive it or not Picasso was one of the initiators of surrealism (Back to 1925)
cheers