Ehhhh, that’s kinda the problem. This kind of thing can be done with incredible skill and attention to detail, but it can also be done without any intent at all. It’s nigh impossible to tell the difference.
When it comes to things this random seeming, the best you can really say is whether or not it works as it is. If you need to know whether or not it’s intentional for it to work, chances are that it just doesn’t work, or doesn’t work for part of the audience.
That being said, this seems to have control, it isn’t just splatters thrown down chaotically (which can be just as valid as anything else, but tends to not). At the very least, there’s some color choice and general pattern management going on. There’s no muddiness, there’s balance and movement. That points to the creator going in with a plan.
Now, there’s always the argument that that isn’t skill, that there’s no substantive techniques involved, and thus it falls into the realm of “elephant art”, or spirographs. That’s something that can’t ever be resolved because it’s such a subjective opinion. I would argue that doing this kind of painting where the results are consistently aesthetically pleasing is skill. But you can’t judge consistency with a single work.
I would also argue that this kind of painting is harder than it looks. Again, it could be done in masses with random applications, and only the successful pieces would be shown. But if one tries to make a color wash for the purpose of both aesthetics and the affect on the viewer, it’s a hell of a lot more than smearing and hoping for the best.
There’s footage of Pollack working that shows exactly how much intent can be applied to what seems like smears and drips. I’m not saying this artist is at that level, I’m just using it as an example of how there can be a lot of skill applied to the seeming random.
I’ve actually tried this kind of thing, back in college. I never succeeded, imo. The best I could achieve is what I think of as office background art, where it’s bland and inoffensive to the eye but can be matched to the decorator’s whim.
100% to this. I am far from any kind of expert, having cobbled together some competency through individual classes and reading on my own over the past 14 years. In formal classes you learn about how to use light and dark values to guide the viewer’s eyes around the work, and keep them engaged with careful composition. Using specific textures, line weights and and colors can reinforce a mood, style or subject matter.
I dabble in many media so I’m still a novice in most art styles so I don’t succeed in thinking these things through with each piece, so some are more “effective” than others. But at the end of the day I paint because I enjoy it and I create things that I like to look at.
There will always be people who prefer hyper realistic art because their view is that that style is the highest skill and its what represents art to them. That is the great thing about art-everyone can find something they like.
I can’t deny that there was a point where I rejected abstract and expressionist stuff. Hell, I still don’t always like it all, and dada falls flat a lot.
But when you take a few classes and try to do it, it gives a different perspective than a more casual art exposure will. Doing so opened me up to the kind of work like Mondrian and Basquiat did, where the realistic or even directly representative isn’t the goal.
Like you said, there’s room for damn near every form of art, and tastes always vary :)
I do think there is also the possibility that people who don’t do art wouldn’t be able to appreciate it. For example what if the colors are just hard to create? Similar to musicians, general public can appreciate some music but musicians will hear and be able to identify difficult techniques more than the general. Same goes for food flavour and chefs.
Ehhhh, that’s kinda the problem. This kind of thing can be done with incredible skill and attention to detail, but it can also be done without any intent at all. It’s nigh impossible to tell the difference.
When it comes to things this random seeming, the best you can really say is whether or not it works as it is. If you need to know whether or not it’s intentional for it to work, chances are that it just doesn’t work, or doesn’t work for part of the audience.
That being said, this seems to have control, it isn’t just splatters thrown down chaotically (which can be just as valid as anything else, but tends to not). At the very least, there’s some color choice and general pattern management going on. There’s no muddiness, there’s balance and movement. That points to the creator going in with a plan.
Now, there’s always the argument that that isn’t skill, that there’s no substantive techniques involved, and thus it falls into the realm of “elephant art”, or spirographs. That’s something that can’t ever be resolved because it’s such a subjective opinion. I would argue that doing this kind of painting where the results are consistently aesthetically pleasing is skill. But you can’t judge consistency with a single work.
I would also argue that this kind of painting is harder than it looks. Again, it could be done in masses with random applications, and only the successful pieces would be shown. But if one tries to make a color wash for the purpose of both aesthetics and the affect on the viewer, it’s a hell of a lot more than smearing and hoping for the best.
There’s footage of Pollack working that shows exactly how much intent can be applied to what seems like smears and drips. I’m not saying this artist is at that level, I’m just using it as an example of how there can be a lot of skill applied to the seeming random.
I’ve actually tried this kind of thing, back in college. I never succeeded, imo. The best I could achieve is what I think of as office background art, where it’s bland and inoffensive to the eye but can be matched to the decorator’s whim.
100% to this. I am far from any kind of expert, having cobbled together some competency through individual classes and reading on my own over the past 14 years. In formal classes you learn about how to use light and dark values to guide the viewer’s eyes around the work, and keep them engaged with careful composition. Using specific textures, line weights and and colors can reinforce a mood, style or subject matter.
I dabble in many media so I’m still a novice in most art styles so I don’t succeed in thinking these things through with each piece, so some are more “effective” than others. But at the end of the day I paint because I enjoy it and I create things that I like to look at.
There will always be people who prefer hyper realistic art because their view is that that style is the highest skill and its what represents art to them. That is the great thing about art-everyone can find something they like.
I wish I could sit a spell with this painting irl, I love it and also love your perspective and context. Good luck!
I can’t deny that there was a point where I rejected abstract and expressionist stuff. Hell, I still don’t always like it all, and dada falls flat a lot.
But when you take a few classes and try to do it, it gives a different perspective than a more casual art exposure will. Doing so opened me up to the kind of work like Mondrian and Basquiat did, where the realistic or even directly representative isn’t the goal.
Like you said, there’s room for damn near every form of art, and tastes always vary :)
I do think there is also the possibility that people who don’t do art wouldn’t be able to appreciate it. For example what if the colors are just hard to create? Similar to musicians, general public can appreciate some music but musicians will hear and be able to identify difficult techniques more than the general. Same goes for food flavour and chefs.