Realism vs. Modern Art/Abstract Expressionism

aversaart

blogs

Posted on Nov 27 2007, 5:50 pm
Mood: Artistic

This is my very first blog and this is a subject that I am curious about. My painting style in the last decade has been realism/impressionism. but back in the 70's I was very much into experimenting with abstract expressionism. I actually feel that my abstract work which I don't have displayed here on this site yet is actually more orginal than my realistic/impressionist style.

I actually had a teacher in art school who hated Norman Rockwell and encouraged more expressionism. I've heard artists back in the early 60's talk about the negative attitudes toward artists that painted anything recognizable. And more often than not abstract expressionism outnumbers realism or impressionism at most of the group exhibits I've been in or have seen in recent years since I got back into painting.

20th century Modern art was revolutionary, it's origins go back to the French Impressionist in the 1870's. Nowadays it's a big umbrella. Modern art is anything and everything except traditional realism or the old school. Super realism might be the exception. Modern art broke the barrier for visual artists who didn't draw so well but still had creative ideas that needed to be expressed.

Who can say! I say art is in the eyes of the beholder.

Replies to this blog entry:

corqmaker
Nov 28 2007, 12:53 pm I've always painted what makes me happy. I guess I'm a 'traditional' artist (whatever that me be), but I'm becoming more intrested in abstract pieces. I try not to be an art snob, but I've always been judgemental and I always feel bad about it. Photographers, digital artists, illustrators, etc. 'slave" over the process as much or sometimes more than I do. I know I'm not qualified to say what is art and what's not... I may have strayed off-subject, but a little rambling is good for the soul sometimes. Create, express, and live. Viva la resistance

Ambershay
Dec 14 2007, 4:03 pm I try to never judge what another person finds to be art or try to figure out why someone would like or dislike creating or viewing a piece. It's all so incredibly personal. Your post brings to mind how the last century has changed the worlds definition of art. In the past I was confused and somewhat angry regarding lables applied to people who do "illustration" versus those who create "art". I never understand why one is considered art and the other illustration. I think about historical art and recall all the great masters and wonder if theywould just be illustrators in todays world. It's like what came first, the chicken or the egg? So now I feel it's a fruitless and tiring task to try and decide what is art, what is more important in the art world, and which artform is better. I believe like our individual experience, only a soul knows what it considers to be art for itself. Nobody can ultimately decide what is best for us. Like we create our experience and become closer to who we are, it is the same in all we create. It only matters that it reflects us in the truest sense. Marni

roux1898
Dec 22 2007, 3:35 pm I try very hard to make my work an expression of life experience. I use recognizable forms to communicate to a viewer and I do not use realism to achieve it. I consider what I do as somewhat abstract, in that, abstraction is the essential parts of whatever one is trying to put down. For me art is anything and everything. I do not judge any other art form however abstract expressionism is so personal that it fails to communicate anything to me, save nice color. I am very happy what I do. roux1898