[graffuturism]

Just wanted to hear some thoughts from the Forum about why they might favor one over the other. I have been watching the forum for the past couple weeks and have been blown away by the discrepancy of representational vs non-representational, or abstract vs figurative works. Obviously you guys love representational imagery even if that is a more type based work which is also representational in my eyes. I can appreciate both artforms. I have my favorite coming from a Graffiti background I have always gravitated towards nonrepresentational images due to the fact that our main goal was to abstract or camouflage our letters as much as possible, Atleast for my style and anyone else working in traditional Wild style. I have been interviewed on numerous occasions and also referenced this same concept to street art vs graffiti, One consisting of more representational images and one consisting of a more abstract idea and form. I think both have some of todays best contemporary artists yet I dont think that is represented in the artworld yet.

Im not trying to sway anyone, just wanted to get some feedback or if this is something even thought about. I don’t see a large representation of abstract artists in here maybe due to street art being the biggest draw for this forum I would guess. Are there any other forums maybe with a Larger abstract of fine art following that do focus on more non-representational work? I love images of rainbows just as much as the next guy but I don’t see much substance in alot of the work being shared. There is good and bad art in every genre I am not trying say all rainbow artists are bad. What I am saying is that I do see alot of artists not being represented or even looked at in here representational or non representational. Thats my opinion and one I would gladly talk to you guys about in this thread. I am a fan of art history and try to remain well read on contemporary art and its criticism. We are not even a bleep on the radar in either genre, even though we are the truest contemporary art there is at the moment. Street art and graffiti art is kind of that step-child that wont go away for the artworld. There are no critics out there that can properly talk about the subject, not many academics even know where to start. So as collectors fans and so forth stockpiling all this art. Does it even matter to you in the long-run. Are you confident the artworld will bend to our artform.

Some of the artists being collected in this forum are amazing, some I have no idea of who they are and yet they are coveted which is great. This forum seems to be a perfect storm for a young artist with ambition. I look outside and see our artists changing city landscapes one mural at a time. Painting multi story buildings across the world with no budgets and no real plans to cash in on what they are doing. These artists paint in both styles mentioned here and are the real power behind this movement, what is curious to me is why are those artists not being sought after and collected. Why is it the artist that stays home and makes another edition to be bought up being compensated. I know I am painting a broad brush but only to bring discussion about this not to be right or say who is better than who. We all have our favorites we always will, I just want to know when you are paying hard earned money to buy a print, or flippers are flipping prints is it about today. Are you not looking towards tomorrow where the real value of your collection may lie. Im not calling anyone out by name or any certain style or genre, I am saying that their is a clear disconnect for those artists out there changing the world with murals and their art and those that are being collected.


Your thoughts?

[Feral Things]

The art I love is fairly evenly split between figurative and abstract art; both in terms of urban art (or whatever you want to call it) and the wider art world. I love Lucas Price's work but I also love Dale Marshall's world and likewise I love Casper David Friedrich's work but I also love Anselm Kiefer's work.

I sometimes find that figurative work is more accessible because you can look at a piece and more easily derive a meaning or message from the piece, or at least understand what the artist is trying to do. Although in the short term I might like a piece because of its aesthetics, I'm unlikely to end up loving the piece in the long term without a deeper connection.

By its very nature, it is not as easy to instantly understand what is going on in abstract art. You often have to see a piece in the context of the artists other work or watch their work develop over a number of years to fully appreciate an individual painting. But I find abstract art often rewards you more richly for this harder work because you build that deeper connection.

I think both figurative and abstract art have as much to offer as each other but abstract art does often give the artist greater scope to express themselves gesturally and I almost feel you get a little bit more of their soul in their works.

Art is a very personal thing, so I'm obviously not trying to imply that the above is the case for anyone else but I guess that's just how I feel.

[graffuturism]

Jul 27, 2013 8:59:56 GMT 1 Feral Things said:

The art I love is fairly evenly split between figurative and abstract art; both in terms of urban art (or whatever you want to call it) and the wider art world. I love Lucas Price's work but I also love Dale Marshall's world and likewise I love Casper David Friedrich's work but I also love Anselm Kiefer's work.

I sometimes find that figurative work is more accessible because you can look at a piece and more easily derive a meaning or message from the piece, or at least understand what the artist is trying to do. Although in the short term I might like a piece because of its aesthetics, I'm unlikely to end up loving the piece in the long term without a deeper connection.

By its very nature, it is not as easy to instantly understand what is going on in abstract art. You often have to see a piece in the context of the artists other work or watch their work develop over a number of years to fully appreciate an individual painting. But I find abstract art often rewards you more richly for this harder work because you build that deeper connection.

I think both figurative and abstract art have as much to offer as each other but abstract art does often give the artist greater scope to express themselves gesturally and I almost feel you get a little bit more of their soul in their works.

Art is a very personal thing, so I'm obviously not trying to imply that the above is the case for anyone else but I guess that's just how I feel.

Thanks for the response Feralthings I think we have a similar view and this is why its so hard for me to buy into alot of the representational work I see going on. I dont see many artists pushing beyond this initial phase. When I look at an artist their work is just the beginning. I look to who they are and what they are doing. Artists like Connor Harrington who can stay in his studio and paint all day chooses to still head outside and paint walls. Artists painting walls and really being Urban artists is what differentiates them from so called trained and contemporary artists. I am not saying all artists need to paint walls some artists clearly have moved on for personal reasons but their history has never been in question. I just see so many artists taking this catch phrase of urban art and using it to get paid. Contemporary Art is not for the weak and artists know how tough it is to get into a real gallery of be accepted in that scene. We are now seeing artists use Urban art as a backdoor then moving on from it which is something that gets to me. They want to using it as a stepping stone.

Like you said representational work is easily accessible and for this reason will always be the front runner for popular art abstract takes as you say some sort of context or background. Yet painters in my eyes can convey this image regardless of the image of lack their of as you mentioned Dale marshall and Anselm Kiefer my favorite contemporary painter and my favorite rising painter Dale. The weight of a painting to me is something that gets overlooked. It goes without saying artists like Banksy and Shephard have proven and will prove to be the real deal but I am just at awe of how many people are buying into the hype of an image versus the reality of the artist outside them. I only make such a serious post and bring up a negative aspect of art because I feel too many artists and even collectors are dilluting the term Urban art. If we dont stand up for our art, the artworld will consolidate it on their terms. Their terms are money and sales records such as MBW and so on. And I know MBW is his own phenonem but Looking around this place I see some bad signs for our artform if this is what people really think Urban Art is about.

[Feral Things]

Jul 27, 2013 9:36:31 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

When I look at an artist their work is just the beginning.

I think that this is one of the key points for me. Although abstract 'urban' artists have come from the world of graffiti, and to a greater or lesser extent are still influenced by graffiti, many seem to have reached out to the wider world in a way that many figurative 'urban' artists haven't really done. Teo Moneyless is being influenced by Bridget Reilly and the OpArt movement; Duncan Jago's work feels like a reaction against staid postmodernism; Mark Lyken is responding to theories of connectivity and microbiology.

There are obviously plenty of figurative artists like Conor Harrington and Lucas Price who are making connections to ideas and influences outside of urban art but on the whole there seems to be far less of an inclination to do so. A lot of figurative urban art seems to just be referring back to itself or at best referencing the pop art movement. I guess the danger then is that it becomes less relevant and interesting for people outside of that bubble and it risks becoming stale because there are not enough new ideas coming in.

That said, I'm just glad that there is such a wealth of exciting talent out there.

[graffuturism]

Thanks Feral Things for responding and In order for us not to have a conversation amongst ourselves we'll let the others get back to pressing questions of framing and so forth. I dont want to go to deep I guess was just testing the waters in here and it seems this was way past the deep end.

[Feral Things]

There are also the Expresso Beans and Artchival forums but, if anything, there seems to be less actual discussion on those forums. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about graffuturism's original post.  Maybe people are just taking some time to gather their thoughts...

[Deleted]

Great thread... Thanks for taking the time to write an educated serious discussion point Graffuturism. Any thoughts anyone?

[Coach]

Jul 29, 2013 6:57:11 GMT 1 Feral Things said:

There are also the Expresso Beans and Artchival forums but, if anything, there seems to be less actual discussion on those forums. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about graffuturism's original post.  Maybe people are just taking some time to gather their thoughts...

I was following the discussion with interest. Less inclined to comment having now seen graffuturism's last post, to be honest. (and my last post was about frames - doh!)

[graffuturism]

Sorry to be so condescending Coach but with so many views on a thread and know one beside Feralthings commenting it seemed like I overstepped my bounds maybe even bringing dialogue into the forum like this. I understand the framing questions Im not trying to change things around here just maybe add some discussion. I am trying to understand maybe some of the intent on how forum members choose what or whom they are interested in. I know you appreciate figurative work coach based on some other threads I have come across. I figured maybe you could address what and why you look at in an artist.

[Coach]

Fair do's. My post was meant to be tongue in cheek, but reading back, appreciate it was a little more handbaggy and for that I apologise.
I have a healthy mix of figurative and abstract work. I'll share some pics tonight. I'll also comment substantively, which is a bit hard to do at the mo, as I'm at work, on a phone, having a fag break!

[graffuturism]

Let me make a visual example and ill use 2 figurative artists and 2 abstract artists 2 that I am familiar with and 2 that I am not but have seen talked about on the forum. Maybe visual images might help the topic move forward.

2 artists I am familar with

Jaz Representational

108 Non-representational

vs artists that I learned about through the forum recently


eelus representational

I tried to search the forum for abstract artists that I didnt know before. I couldnt find anyone besides Jago, Parla, Dale Marshall, Momo,Remi Rough and Moneyless. All these guys I have featured and I couldnt find much more concerning abstract which is maybe why i asked this question in the first place. Not many non-representational artists making the rounds in here.

[Deleted]

Personally I think abstract graffiti is a step backwards from letter forms and characters, and I think the same for painting in general. Abstract art was a small blip in the history of art dominated by a small coterie of bourgeois art dealers who were desperately looking for the "new" to sell to their equally bourgeois collectors. The shock of the new. But it was a castle built on sand and without the continued support of a couple of major dealers, collapsed.

Mode 2 once famously noted, the revolutionary beauty of graffiti was the undermining of the traditional method of teaching art in schools across the world where traditionally, those pupils who had a "natural" (middle class) ability to draw from life, were feted by teachers, parents and fellow pupils alike. Anyone who had a burning interest in art, but not the "innate" talent, was sidelined, discouraged and pushed elsewhere. With graffiti, you simply needed to know your ABC's.. that was it. and you were judged by your peers, not an overtly conservative education dept. That was the revolution right there. In addition, the rules were created by those who created the work, not theorists, dealers, teachers, history or academics.

The fact that from letters came wildstyle and abstract letter forms and latterly pure abstraction, isn't all that interesting or new. It happened in art generations ago. I can appreciate an obsession with colour, shape and form..with abstraction, but without a degree in the subject and a knowledge of a very linear type of art history, then it's difficult to get beyond the fact that it's merely decorative, something to go with the sofa. There's no revolution in abstract art. It's kinda like the "freejazz" movement.. where talented painters without ideas go to die.

The dominance of figurative art in street art can be partly explained by early writers (Banksy and Fairey in particular) adopting methods of communication pioneered by ad agencies and media to transmit a message through a medium that was understood by the masses. The revolutionary break with traditional graffiti being a desire to communicate with a mass audience rather than a small hermetic group who's codes were designed to communicate with each other and lock out the rest. In fact, not that dissimilar to abstract art.

Figurative art can offer the same obsession with shape, form, colour..but also has the ability to connect directly with a persons own experience of life, with their emotions. It can also act as a medium that expresses values the viewer associates with. And, yep, can be decorative. There are a few contemporary and street artists working in public space working with abstraction, urban interventions tend to be abstract in form, and there are a few whose names I can't be bothered googling at the moment that I think are pushing public art and art in general forward, the ones that mess with perspective for example.. and a few writers can be included in this.

But abstract art on a flat plane, a 2D canvas or print..a dead duck that should be consigned to history IMO.

Peace

[graffuturism]

Personally I think abstract graffiti is a step backwards from letter forms and characters, and I think the same for painting in general. Abstract art was a small blip in the history of art dominated by a small coterie of bourgeoisie art dealers who were desperately looking for the "new" to sell to their equally bourgeoisie collectors. The shock of the new. But it was a castle built on sand and without the continued support of a couple of major dealers, collapsed.

I think its natural for any artform and that includes graffiti and painting to experiment and start to deconstruct their initial traditional forms. For a certain artform not to do so is more of a step backwards in its evolution as an artform in my opinion. To keep with tradition or the status quo is something that I see happening with artforms that dont question or ask themselves what and why they are doing things. This questioning usually is the start of taking away the image in order to bring it back. Abstract in Painting and graffiti is not the answer but only one avenue in which to travel. I dont think it is the only artform that needs to be seen, but it shouldn't be ignored. As far as being a blip and collapsing I would disagree, abstract is alive in painting not only our artform but in academic schools of art and so forth. It hasnt become any less important than any other time in history. It is actually still a relitively new artform when viewing things from a larger perspective. Like all new artforms it has had its peaks and lows but it is still a force in the larger contemporary scene and also contributing to the 3 last major artforms modern, conceptual, and pop art.

Mode 2 once famously noted, the revolutionary beauty of graffiti was the undermining of the traditional method of teaching art in schools across the world where traditionally, those pupils who had a "natural" (middle class) ability to draw from life, were feted by teachers, parents and fellow pupils alike. Anyone who had a buring interest in art, but not the "inate" talent, was sidelined, discouraged and pushed elsewhere. With graffiti, you simply needed to know your ABC's.. that was it. and you were judged by your peers, not an overtly conservative education dept. That was the revolution right there. In addition, the rules were created by those who created the work, not theorists, dealers, teachers, history or academics.

Great quote, yet this is a graffiti quote and looking back at the history of graffiti the Abc's have and always have been the focus. Characters artists were always looked down upon if they also did not put the same energy into their letterforms. This is my initial point that their already was and still is a wedge between figurative vs abstract, Characters vs letterform, and now graffiti vs street art. His revolution as he states is rebelling against a natural middle class ability drawing from life(Representational) vs those that couldn't draw from life and could just paint Letterform which is also representational but in an already evolved and abstracted form. This is something that I speak about time and again as the underlying ethos of graffiti. Depending upon when you were introduced to graffiti and what decade it would be hard to say if you came into a decade of wildstyle or more readable letterstyle. The common thread though is as this quote states is being self taught first, many went to school after the fact or when they grew older but the initial introduction to art was made and involved learning from your peers. From the gestural tag to the wildstyle piece or the stylized representational character graffiti has always leaned towards abstraction. I had a long talk with Saber in a recent interview and he speaks about this pattern this pattern in life this pattern in graffiti. It is this abstract idea that we can see. So when talking about Urban art, and this is why I even spend the time to write this lengthy of a response abstract should not be overlooked. Urban art is the combination of street art a more representational artform and graffiti a more non-representational artform. Not seeing abstract ideas or artists being represented in an Urban Art forum is concerning.

The fact that from letters came wildstyle and abstract letter forms and latterly pure abstraction, isn't all that interesting or new. It happened in art generations ago. I can appreciate an obsession with colour, shape and form..with abstraction, but without a degree in the subject and a knowledge of a very linear type of art history, then it's difficult to get beyond the fact that it's merely decorative, something to go with the sofa. There's no revolution in abstract art. It's kinda like the "freejazz" movement.. where talented painters without ideas go to die. A mastubatory artform that puts the artist at the center of his/her own (ego) universe. A nice old dated romantic idea of a male dominated art scene, but history shows it has little interest for the mass audience of today. Even at it's peak very few people bought into it.



I disagree with this point wholeheartedly. It might not be interesting to acknowledge the progression of wildstyle to abstract art if you dont appreciate graffiti or art in general. For one its historical, meaning it is the first time it is happening regardless if you like it or not. You have to agree that graffiti wildstyle did not exist before and was not deconstructed or abstracted before as a whole. Secondly it is the truth, it is not or was not formulating in a classroom or taught by any traditional form of education. Graffiti and its later evolution into abstract form happened on its own from outside and personal influences. Each artist who chose to walk that path first had to have the history of being a graffiti artist and then care enough to create something new from their perspective. We can argue that artists have done similar abstractions and aesthetically it is nothing new, but you cannot argue that it is not relevant because the artist didnt have formal training or a degree in the subject. It is decorative because graffiti artists couldnt possibly understand color and form like a academically trained graduate on the subject. This is false. Having a linear type of art history as you put it isnt what todays abstract art is about. Do todays figurative street artists need to have a linear art history in order to paint the figure with a stencil? Without a degree in color and form and shape are street artists not decorative in the sense of your definition. Subject matter is not a justification for acceptable art. Figurative art is not all good, as abstract art is not all good. As you state there is no revolution in abstract art and that it is where talented painters without ideas go to die much like the free jazz movement. I cant speak for the reference but I can say that an idea is of great importance in most occasions when painting abstract art vs your idea being illustrated for you when using imagery. Artists that have spent years some decades evolving donot simply choose a style for a lack of ideas most artists I know paint abstractly for many of the same reasons artists paint with imagery, they have just chosen a different path of representation. Graffiti has never been about communicating with the mass media, it was always about being seen by people on the street but most artists were talking to each other through their own language and way of communicating. Abstract art acts in a similar fashion its aims are not immediately known and rely either context to understand if there is even a statement the artist is making. It is a language within itself, it is not a language as universal as representational imagery. Because someone uses a universal language does not make their message more important. What the artist chooses to paint should only be the first step in learning about who and what they are.



The dominance of figurative art in street art can be partly explained by early writers (Banksy and Fairey in particular) adopting methods of communication pioneered by ad agencies and media to transmit a message through a medium that was understood by the masses. The revolutionary break with traditional graffiti being a desire to communicate with a mass audience rather than a small hermetic group who's codes were designed to communicate with each other and lock out the rest. In fact, not that dissimilar to abstract art.

This is true as stated above yet does not explain the lack of experimentation and acceptance in street art of non-representational artists or images. Why has street art remained to rely on banksy and shephard as the model. Why are their so many artists who clearly copy these artists yet are rewarded for being copies because an artist like banksy fails to create any more product. What does this say for the artform? There are many artists that work outside this traditional street art style that work in figurative a figurative manner and are the real deal. They are painting streets and representing street art yet they get no mention of appreciation because of the nostalgic tradition of certain artists. I dont understand also why and who stated that street artists all had a desire to communicate with the mass media. Because an artist paints in public space doesnt mean he wants to be seen as representing a similar aesthetic to a billboard of advertisement. The revolution that Mode spoke of earlier also involved self curation. Artists being able to dictate their own destiny on the streets. Painting walls that they wanted to paint for whatever reasons they wanted to paint them, not all street artists are painting for the mass media or using a corporate aesthetic to do so. Todays rising street artists are Muralists, they are painters. They are not just wheat pasting or whatever billboard style the mass media digests. They are trained painters from graffiti and street art. They have made their own tools in order to tackle scale, they have formed a new movement that will rival the  older Mexican muralists of sequiroes and orozco. Todays artists the ones I care about are a new breed of artists who work in abstract and figurative and most of them are painters. Some use many tools yet convey the same idea of a mural not a billboard. This was another reason why i raised this question in here why are painters being overlooked as well.

Figurative art can offer the same obsession with shape, form, colour..but also has the ability to connect directly with a persons own experience of life, with their emotions. It can also act as a medium that expresses values the viewer associates with. And, yep, can be decorative. There are a few contemporary and street artists working in public space working with abstraction, urban interventions tend to be abstract in form, and there are a few whose names I can't be bothered googling at the moment that I think are pushing public art and art in general forward, the ones that mess with perspective for example.. and a few writers can be included in this.

There is no denying that the image is a more direct route to connect with a wider audience. I am not arguing this point or someones preference to either. I think people like what they like and appreciate what they know. My experience is that both forms of art can move me without any idea of initial meaning. An abstract has power sometimes through other intangibles that the figure that can distract you from seeing.

But abstract art on a flat plane, a 2D canvas or print..a dead duck that should be consigned to history and Ikea IMO.

Well we can agree to disagree and i appreciate your long response. I was looking for another perspective and you took the time to write a great one. Thank you for that.

GF



Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/107989/representational-non-art#ixzz2aQYuRSuF

[Dr Plip]

I think I just prefer pictures of things.

[Deleted]

Hi GF, was mostly just playing devil's advocate but it's deserving of debate for sure and in the context of Graffiti and Street art on the street, it's definitely been one of the most interesting developments this past decade or so. Saber being a prime example of someone whose managed the transition from street to canvas in an interesting way. Never been a huge fan of pure abstraction, but I guess you got that ;-)

Interesting you note the recent dominance of a new "Muralism" stemming I guess from Latin America, another area that for me personally, holds little or no real interest. I guess our introduction to work on this scale came through the likes of Blu etc..which at the time (still?) and because of his political stance was fresh and also challenging, but also unrelated (historically) to the more colourful (but maybe no less revolutionary) Latin American school.

For me, Muralism much like abstraction, lacks the "personal" that bumping into a small stencil or wheatepaste down a back alley or on your way to work brings to our lives. More and more, these huge murals are leading to a homogenised street art culture where all references to the various disciplines and the diversity of methods that make up street art, are subsumed under the sheer scale and weight of huge sanctioned murals. I know from first hand experience that it's what city councilors want, what sponsors like (demand?) and is slowly becoming what the public expects. Even more so if the imagery is derivative "surrealism" (another bugbear). The pressure on new street art festivals and events to create huge murals is intense and either through a form self censorship or a need to be noticed, the diversity of the scene is under threat. Give me a sticker, decent tag, small stencil or wheatepaste any day. In saying that, I am responsible for creating quite a few large scale murals..lol. So don't get me wrong, they should be produced and out there, but if you read the likes of StreetArtnews and other blogs of that type, you'd think that "Muralism" was all that existed.

There's no doubt, a HUGE amount of talent out there.. but when the city is the same for everyone and everyone's experience of "street art" is the same, the meaning and the power will be irrevocably lost. Much like it was the first time around. The strength (and future?) of street art is it's diversity, it's use and abuse of new technologies, public space as a playground and intervening with members of the public on a personal level, be it abstract, figurative, stencil, sticker, tag or huge mural.

Anyway, interesting topics, hope you don't mind my sounding off. It's been a while ;-)

Edit. Popped out to buy a packet of fags halfway through this and bumped into this sign, two pieces of black tape..the genius of street art, plain and simple.

[ilmambo]

Jul 29, 2013 15:33:43 GMT 1 @martedanielsen said:

Edit. Popped out to buy a packet of fags halfway through this and bumped into this sign, two pieces of black tape..the genius of street art, plain and simple.

sorry to interrupt an interesting thread, just wanted to say that Sweza (an underrated artist with some brilliant ideas imho) did that 10 years ago.



sweza.com/grazie-bush/

[nah]

Jul 29, 2013 10:34:39 GMT 1 @martedanielsen said:

... Abstract art was a small blip in the history of art dominated by a small coterie of bourgeois art dealers who were desperately looking for the "new" to sell to their equally bourgeois collectors. The shock of the new. But it was a castle built on sand and without the continued support of a couple of major dealers, collapsed.

..huh? maybe i misunderstood your post but when it comes to contemporary painting abstraction is by far the dominating force right now

[Deleted]

That's highly unlikely, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it, every art magazine from Art Forum to Frieze and onto mainstream media would be leading articles with "Abstraction sweeps the globe".. It's a pretty minor scene compared to Figurative and Conceptual Art.

[Gard]

Go to an evening sale at one of the auction houses and there's about a 50/50 split in abstract and non abstract. Also Gerhard Richter, who is one to be taken serious in the art world, calls his paintings 'Abstractes Bild' and numbers them. I think he knows what he's doing.

[angel41]

Jul 29, 2013 18:38:36 GMT 1 Gard said:

Go to an evening sale at one of the auction houses and there's about a 50/50 split in abstract and non abstract. Also Gerhard Richter, who is one to be taken serious in the art world, calls his paintings 'Abstractes Bild' and numbers them. I think he knows what he's doing.

Indeed he does. A painting of his sold at auction recently and was the highest amount ever paid for a work by a living artist.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217383/Eric-Clapton-sells-Gerhard-Richter-painting-record-21-3-million--11-years-buying-paintings-just-1-9-million.html

Doesn't get bigger than that.
 

[Gard]

Now you are mixing terminologies Nuart. Conceptual art can be abstract or figurative (or something completely else because it's so much strange things happening there).

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2013 18:46:17 GMT 1 Gard said:

Now you are mixing terminologies Nuart. Conceptual art can be abstract or figurative (or something completely else because it's so much strange things happening there).

A mute point Gard. Conceptual Art is historically clearly a separate genre to Abstract and Figurative Art and understandable in the context written. However.. I do think this linear idea of art history and probably the discussion we're having regarding Abstraction and Figurative art should maybe also be confined to history. I guess that's both the beauty and the beast of 21st Century contemporary art. Anything goes.

Via wiki : Digital art, computer art, internet art, hard-edge painting, geometric abstraction, appropriation, hyperrealism, photorealism, expressionism, minimalism, lyrical abstraction, pop art, op art, abstract expressionism, color field painting, monochrome painting, neo-expressionism, collage, decollage, intermedia, assemblage, digital painting, postmodern art, neo-Dada painting, shaped canvas painting, environmental mural painting, graffiti, figure painting, landscape painting, portrait painting, are a few continuing and current directions at the beginning of the 21st century.

I guess we can add Street Art and Urban Art to that. Interestingly, all of the above crop up in Street Art. Won't be long before it's just "Art".

[Deleted]

Not sure what's worse, art historians or LSE graduates at Sotheby's telling us what's important in the "art world".

[nah]

Jul 29, 2013 18:24:02 GMT 1 @martedanielsen said:

That's highly unlikely, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it, every art magazine from Art Forum to Frieze and onto mainstream media would be leading articles with "Abstraction sweeps the globe".. It's a pretty minor scene compared to Figurative and Conceptual Art.

articles like that are being written... www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/15728/1/the-return-of-abstract-art

check the recent phillips catalogues to get a good idea of where we seem to be at the moment

www.phillips.com/auctions/auction/UK010513
www.phillips.com/auctions/auction/NY010413

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2013 19:53:04 GMT 1 nah said:

Jul 29, 2013 18:24:02 GMT 1 @martedanielsen said:

That's highly unlikely, I'm pretty sure we'd have heard about it, every art magazine from Art Forum to Frieze and onto mainstream media would be leading articles with "Abstraction sweeps the globe".. It's a pretty minor scene compared to Figurative and Conceptual Art.

articles like that are being written... www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/15728/1/the-return-of-abstract-art

check the recent phillips catalogues to get a good idea of where we seem to be at the moment

www.phillips.com/auctions/auction/UK010513
www.phillips.com/auctions/auction/NY010413

Interesting article from Dazed thanks, not sure the relevance of the Philips links. A lot of second rate works from 10 and 20 years ago (plus a few gems), it's certainly not where contemporary art is now. That's the second "Auction House" reference on the thread. A good 90% of all Street and Urban art is figurative, that's pretty much obvious no ? Not sure there's a valid argument here for a focus on Abstraction other than it's part of the overall picture and maybe more deserving of the boards attention, which in general, over the years, I think its had.

[angel41]

Yes, I think abstract art and abstract graffiti/urban art should be treated separately, definitely from a market perspective. I mean the difference in the amounts of money that changes hands is worlds apart.

[graffuturism]

Hi GF, was mostly just playing devil's advocate but it's deserving of debate for sure and in the context of Graffiti and Street art on the street, it's definitely been one of the most interesting developments this past decade or so. Saber being a prime example of someone whose managed the transition from street to canvas in an interesting way. Never been a huge fan of pure abstraction, but I guess you got that ;-)

Haha yes I got that but it was a good response nonetheless.

Interesting you note the recent dominance of a new "Muralism" stemming I guess from Latin America, another area that for me personally, holds little or no real interest. I guess our introduction to work on this scale came through the likes of Blu etc..which at the time (still?) and because of his political stance was fresh and also challenging, but also unrelated (historically) to the more colourful (but maybe no less revolutionary) Latin American school.

I dont know if I would say that Muralism is related to the Latin American muralists at all as much as it was directly influenced by the scale of graffiti and street art. Todays muralist use spray paint and in most cases house paint to do these murals and are untrained in almost all occasions. I feel that it is evolved form of graffiti and street art that continues to surprise me. It is an artform that exists outside the market and is hard to commodify. These are not being packaged and sold and in this way stay revolutionary. 

For me, Muralism much like abstraction, lacks the "personal" that bumping into a small stencil or wheatepaste down a back alley or on your way to work brings to our lives. More and more, these huge murals are leading to a homogenised street art culture where all references to the various disciplines and the diversity of methods that make up street art, are subsumed under the sheer scale and weight of huge sanctioned murals. I know from first hand experience that it's what city councilors want, what sponsors like (demand?) and is slowly becoming what the public expects. Even more so if the imagery is derivative "surrealism" (another bugbear). The pressure on new street art festivals and events to create huge murals is intense and either through a form self censorship or a need to be noticed, the diversity of the scene is under threat. Give me a sticker, decent tag, small stencil or wheatepaste any day. In saying that, I am responsible for creating quite a few large scale murals..lol. So don't get me wrong, they should be produced and out there, but if you read the likes of StreetArtnews and other blogs of that type, you'd think that "Muralism" was all that existed.

Its the range of street art graffiti art that allows to what you like per se those unexpected finds and small moments to the grand murals. Me personally I can appreciate a tag also as much as I can appreciate a well painted wall but we need both. One is where we came from one one is where we are going. But you make a excellent point on the homogenising of street art through large scale murals. But when you think about it would your rather see some contemporary artist know one has heard of being payed hand over fist paint these large scale murals, some more advertisement, or a blank wall with no architectural beauty. Me i would always choose a mural painted by my contemporaries regardless of any BS it might entail. You have to also admire the drive of the artists doing so and gauge there perseverance and reasoning to almost kill themselves painting so high up. I always question the motive and am immediately suspect of artists that do some small wheatpastes or stickers then all of a sudden are releasing a print or doing a show. I get that the tongue and cheek nature of these artists is and has an immediate impact, yet it fades. I would argue that muralists today are less likely to have motives just to make a print or do a show, it takes passion to be 10 stories in the air on a lift for days. Your not thinking about how many editions this mural will have. The staying power of a backalley sticker vs the permanence of a 10 story mural is maybe something that is too far apart to debate, but I can always tell an artists motivations by what and how consistent they put in the streets.


There's no doubt, a HUGE amount of talent out there.. but when the city is the same for everyone and everyone's experience of "street art" is the same, the meaning and the power will be irrevocably lost. Much like it was the first time around. The strength (and future?) of street art is it's diversity, it's use and abuse of new technologies, public space as a playground and intervening with members of the public on a personal level, be it abstract, figurative, stencil, sticker, tag or huge mural.

Agreed, we all need to have our own particular needs met as observers and I think Street art covers this pretty well in scope.

Anyway, interesting topics, hope you don't mind my sounding off. It's been a while ;-)

Thats what the discussion was made for to sound off as you can see I have done the same on numerous occasions already in here.

GF

Read more: urbanartassociation.com/thread/107989/representational-non-art#ixzz2aT11tAK9

[graffuturism]

Also this is a great article that also is published in the E-Flux Journal Book What is contemporary Art? Great collection of essays on the subject.

This quote is from Jorg Heiser who wrote an excellent essay and also mentions some of what we talk about in this thread about abstract art being swallowed and used by other artforms in a new hybridity. Artists like Sol Lewit whis considered a conceptual artist yet paints in an abstract style at times. Also modernism has been a known component of abstract art that still lives on today.

Here is a quote and link to the article and book.

"So are we dealing here with a kind of “saturation” of the idea that art could progress? A kind of historic accumulation of already-achieved expansions and reinventions of what art could be, leaving us feeling stranded amidst the flotsam of these previous achievements piling up in the museums, the libraries, and on the Internet? Evidence that this might be the case comes courtesy of the observation that this experience is not exclusive to art. In pop music, the last “explosions” of new styles were punk in the 1970s and hip-hop and techno in the 1980s; since then, a myriad of styles have been circulating, but none has had a comparable impact. In philosophy, the age of schools seems to be over, too; since the death of Jacques Derrida in 2004, all of the influential movements seem actually to be hybrids of earlier movements, even if they ironically argue for purity and against hybridity, and so on."



www.e-flux.com/journal/torture-and-remedy-the-end-of-isms-and-the-beginning-hegemony-of-the-impure/

www.amazon.com/E-Flux-Journal-What-Contemporary-Art/dp/1934105104/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1375135637&sr=8-4&keywords=what+is+contemporary+art

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2013 23:07:35 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

Also this is a great article that also is published in the E-Flux Journal Book What is contemporary Art? Great collection of essays on the subject.

This quote is from Jorg Heiser who wrote an excellent essay and also mentions some of what we talk about in this thread about abstract art being swallowed and used by other artforms in a new hybridity. Artists like Sol Lewit whis considered a conceptual artist yet paints in an abstract style at times. Also modernism has been a known component of abstract art that still lives on today.

Here is a quote and link to the article and book.

"So are we dealing here with a kind of “saturation” of the idea that art could progress? A kind of historic accumulation of already-achieved expansions and reinventions of what art could be, leaving us feeling stranded amidst the flotsam of these previous achievements piling up in the museums, the libraries, and on the Internet? Evidence that this might be the case comes courtesy of the observation that this experience is not exclusive to art. In pop music, the last “explosions” of new styles were punk in the 1970s and hip-hop and techno in the 1980s; since then, a myriad of styles have been circulating, but none has had a comparable impact. In philosophy, the age of schools seems to be over, too; since the death of Jacques Derrida in 2004, all of the influential movements seem actually to be hybrids of earlier movements, even if they ironically argue for purity and against hybridity, and so on."



www.e-flux.com/journal/torture-and-remedy-the-end-of-isms-and-the-beginning-hegemony-of-the-impure/

www.amazon.com/E-Flux-Journal-What-Contemporary-Art/dp/1934105104/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1375135637&sr=8-4&keywords=what+is+contemporary+art

great article, thanks !