This post may contain affiliate links.
Some arguments never die. The question “Is abstract art valid” raised its head again over the weekend while I was doing a bit of art travel, heading down to Windsor, Ontario, for the opening of my father’s exhibition The Optimism of Colour: William Perehudoff, a retrospective.
Two other shows opened at the Art Gallery of Windsor on Friday night, John Kissick’s A Nervous Decade and an exhibition by Luanne Martineau, and on Saturday there was a panel discussion with critics Roald Nasgaard and Karen Wilkin plus the artists (but not my dad because he’s 93 and in a wheelchair and not scooting around much).
I’ve been caught in the middle of this conversation for years, as both the daughter of an abstract artist and as a former art student when conceptual artist Jenny Holzer ruled and abstract art was no longer cool, but if you’re new to the discussion then you really should get with the program. So I’m going to help you.
What I have learned, through the discussion on Saturday, through my stints at the Banff Centre of the Arts as a visual artist, and in my days at art school, is that abstract art is not valid. And here’s why:
1) Abstract art is too safe … just something to hang over the couch in a middle-class home.
2) Abstract art is elitist. Abstract Expressionist paintings are so monumental they cannot fit into an average home and so are out of reach to the average middle-class person (unless she or he has a very large couch and a very large wall behind it).
3) Abstract art is commercial. You can buy and sell abstract art, unlike say, a thought, and the taint of money is UGLY.
Of course when non-abstract art such as conceptual artist Damien Hirst’s The Golden Calf, a pickled calf with gold horns and hooves, sells for £10.3 million, it can all get confusing, but that’s okay. Try not to think about it and just blame abstract art. But don’t get me wrong, I adore Damien Hirst and would very much like a calf preserved in formaldehyde over my couch. As long as the hooves are golden.
4) Abstract art is associated with American cultural imperialism. I found the following quote, oddly enough, on the Maritime Union of Australia website, on a page dedicated to a Roy Dalgarno – a painter and socialist realist:
“During the Cold War social realism became associated with communism, while abstract expressionism (such as the works of Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko) served as adjunct to American capitalism and its ideology. Abstract expressionism was a movement aligned with the rise of American cultural imperialism. It became allied with the right; social realism with the left. (Modern Art: A critical introduction by Pam Meecham and Julie Sheldon )”
I have no comment about this point, I just thought it was interesting.
The next point explains why abstract art is particularly not valid in Saskatchewan
5) Abstract art is associated with American cultural imperialism. American. And therefore a borrowed style of art and not Canadian.
I can’t answer this with any type of academic credence, so I’m going to talk about spas. Stay with me here. It’s a big trend in the spa world, and a valid one, to have treatments that are related to the locale, such as massages that incorporate local healing traditions and essential oils made with local ingredients like Quebec sage and Niagara lavender.
Done right, the ‘go local’ movement is a fantastic addition to the spa culture. However (of course I have a however!), if spas were only allowed to ‘go local’ we would have no Swedish massage (unless you were in Sweden), no Thai massage (you would have to go to Bangkok for that and I recommend Wat Po Temple if you do) and not even any yoga as that comes from India or facials with peptide-rich products from Switzerland! And then going to the spa wouldn’t be any fun at all.
(Someone also asked me to mention the fact that the culturally imperious American artists at least took the Saskatchewan artists seriously back in the 60s, while central Canada seemed happy to ignore them completely.)
6) Finally, abstract art is a male dominated bastion. Okay. you got me here. I’ll tell dad to start quilting.
Seriously though, in the end, the argument will go on (after all we’re still arguing over the validity of Impressionism, aren’t we? Oh, what? We’re not?) and so will the reactionary nature of art. One movement is a springboard, or maybe acts as a pendulum, for another. Early Canadian abstraction can be seen as a reaction against the Group of Seven landscapes. And Colour Field artists like my father, engaged in simplifying art down to essential elements, with their staining and flat planes of colour, can be seen as reacting to the more gestural work of earlier abstract expressionists like Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock. And so Colour Field/abstract art is reacted against in turn.
As New York critic Karen Wilkin said at the panel discussion, “the son always kills the father.” Which brings me to my final conclusion, that my dad is just lucky he had daughters.
The Optimism of Colour runs until April 1, 2012. On July 7 it will open at the Robert Mclaughlin Gallery in Oshawa, Ontario.
Read more about William Perehudoff
The Optimism of Colour: William Perehudoff rides again
I love my dad: William Perehudoff in Victoria
William Perehudoff at the Glenbow Art Gallery in Calgary
Putting on the Ritz … in video
Also, à la Matisse’s comment about art being like a good armchair—art being an experience akin to going for a spa treatment!! Good one!
Hysterical!!!!
Sure, abstract painting is garbage, love all art since Egypt until the second world war. But what passes nowadays as art is just a bad joke.
I’m not sure you’re catching the irony here, Mike, but admittedly, I’m often wrong.
Hey hun (I was going to use a colourful word but “there are children watching”)
ding dong u r wrong
I am an artist that has to see a figure or a no object in my paintings I am exploring abstract with another artist and don’ t feel that completion? Doesn’t help my critics are 4 men ( sons and hubby)
A few people like my abstract art, or so they say. Check It out on my website if you like, or don’t,, it’s up to you.
@spenscergallery – there may be some irony here. I leave it to you to decide.
I am assuming this article is joke, right? You can’t really believe that Abstract Art or Conceptual Art styles are invalid…really….so as artists our vision is only valid if we create works that can be recognized as “something or someone, or somewhere”? Am I reading you wrong? Creating art itself is valid. I understand if someone doesn’t like or respond to Abstract Art or Conceptual Art..but to say that a certain style is invalid screams a serious lack of knowledge regarding Art History, or acknowledgement of the sacrifice and hard work the great masters of this style suffered. De Kooning, Rothko, Pollok, etc. Have you actually tried to create an Abstract piece? A meaningful one? I am sure that the great masters of these styles had more in mind when the created their art than hoping it would fit over someone’s couch. I know I do.
Thanks, Allan. Yes, there is room in this world for all types of art!
Art is in the eye of the beholder. If your into contemporary art or abstract who cares! If the art you like makes you feel good inside thats all that matters. Great article..
Sorry Rafiki – I had to edit the swear word. There are children watching this program! Haha.
Rothko’s Color Field art reminds me of *&*%^ on canvas.
What is art?
A question that will be asked forever.
What is GOOD art?
A question that will be asked forever.
Personally, I have read so much gobbledygook art speak ( not you, Carol) that it could put me off contemporary art forever, it’s so ridiculous, though my own feelings are probably simplistic.
I think art is in the eye (mind, soul) of the viewer. I may love something that someone else thinks is utter crap, and vice versa. Enough with the labels! Let art be democratic! Personally, my feelings about Hirst’s diamond – studded skull and all the rest of his ‘ouvre’ arose feelings akin to what I feel looking at a Keane picture of a sad-eyed waif coupled with both rage and awe at his audacity, but if both work for someone as ‘art’ so be it.
Personally, there was a time when I felt no connection to abstract art and now I do. Big time. My problem is that there is just so much bad examples of it out there (there’s that subjective thing again!) .
Because art is representational doesn’t automatically make it good, and the same thing goes for abstract art.
Carol,
What you wrote would be mostly true about art that is shown in large galleries or museums. But we have to remember, that what is shown there represents only a small portion of all different kinds of abstract art out there. There is also plenty of abstract art that is not elitist, as you say “fits over ones’ couch”. One just has to look at places that do not target owners of urban million dollar lofts.
Color blocks and color fields, as well as abstract expressionism are last century trends, respected, but a bit outdated trends in art. In my opinion, especially color field trend is over-represented in many museums. Why is this style of art still chosen by the museum and exhibit curators is a bit of mystery to me. Maybe because it is textbook safe, maybe because some curators may suffer from visual fatigue (from looking at too much art), and simply want to look at something simple. There are plenty of very interesting, fresh trends emerging under the radars of general population. Why they are not known, sold for millions of dollars is a different question all together.
Huge abstract paintings are what seem to be popular, so galleries tend to cater to this trend. Also, it has been proven that female visual perception is different from male, the way information is processed in the brain. This difference in perception is transferred into art (not just quilts :)) both during creative process for an artist, and during viewing. This gap in perception of art is slowly closing, it just has not reached most exhibit and museum floors, and has not opened the wallets of those powerful males, who would be willing to buy it.
Art – it’s all good dude including this article;-)
Thanks Carol
I like Katherine Sicotte sculpture.
Personally, I love both of your parents art. Are there qualitative differences in great art? Thanks for the post.
I love the photos!
Great article!
Great stuff, Carol! The colour field show at the AGO a few years ago http://www.ago.net/the-shape-of-colour was excellent. I remember thinking how everyone there seemed to be emotionally enchanted by all the colour, no one wanted to leave. Chromophobia by David Batchelor is a very entertaining book on the bias against colour …
Abstract art is not valid? Abstract art is imperialist? What lunatics are spouting this nonsense? I sometimes feel guilty for dimissing conceptual art because it often seems like a bunch of discarded metal that I wouldn’t want to messing up my living room. But the transcendent beauty that abstraction is capable of…..who could dismiss that? Who does? Also, renegades like Jackson Pollack were certainly not guilty of American imperialimst any more than the later beatniks were. Anyway, Carol, thanks for this fascinating post and good luck with your Dad’s show….
Jacquie
XD I chuckled as I was reading this post. I use to not like abstract art, especially after I visited SF MOMA in 1997, I was not impressed.
After some artsy influence from my mom (who is an artist in Taiwan), now I can accept some abstract art….just some.