First of all, I'd like to state that in no way, am I intentionally dissing abstract art here if it even sounds like I am.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share this with you guys, but yesterday on 20/20, they were showing these abstract paintings being sold for millions of dollars done by these so-called pros. But it got interesting when the host had these random 4 year old girls paint on a canvas and then set their work up next to the 'pro' abstract artists' pieces and see if these educated artists having studied art could tell the difference. And amazingly, these educated guys were shown these 4 year old paintings (unknowing that 4 year olds actually painted them) and describing just how expressive they were until the host told them they were done by these children and these guys just go "well then, they're geniuses." I just thought it was kinda funny but then again I really haven't studied much about abstract art so I dunno if they could be right. But I think art loses its value when the artist doesn't know what he/she is painting and leaves it up for interpretation. And in this case, I'm sure these children knew nothing of abstract art or even meant to give it actual meaning, but were just having fun. For all we know, these paintings coulda been sold for millions of dollars as well had they not revealed the truth...

Try this quiz to see if you're the least knowledgeable of abstract art: http://reverent.org/true_art_or_fake_art.html. I tried it and got a 50%. Wow, I really like this art. I'm gonna wait for other responses before I make a more thoughtful post. Because, I, feel the same way about abstract. I'm not abstract; more like concrete. I can appreciate other types of art; abstract is a difficult one to agree upon. Wait a minute... would you even call it "art"? Scribbles or no scribbles, would I say art? Not really.

I personally think abstract art is crap. People just slop whatever down and call it art and people think it's great. Anyone could do it, even if they were putting their feelings into it or not. I don't consider 3 squares "true art" -.-;;

I think abstract art can be impressive and complex and artistic, but sometimes it is too simplistic... <:(
|XOD|

I saw that on 20/20...
I personally love abstract art. I think its alot more challenging...I don't really know how else to describe it. I do think that context of the piece/artist can effect it though, because often people who create abstract works can also create great renderings. But this goes way into alot of my personal beliefs, which sometimes can seem weird to people. There are different types of "abstract" art as well...minimalism is more of the "three squares", but then you've got expressionism etc.
Anyway it was an interesting program.

Haha, 75% on that quiz thing of yours, Cordelia.

*Cought* Linkage http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/36839/

There are "abstracts" being sold that were done by an elephant,a gorilla,, chimps..and yes..many very wierd people who talk a lot of hoohah.. The real abstracts, to me, were and are,done by artists like Picasso, as an example. He could do wonderful classical paintings but developed his stunning and unique abstracts from there. Much of the "abstract art that is ooohed and ahhhed over today is just a joke, to me. Just a bunch of smears and splotches with a pseudointellectual artsy sounding description.

I don't care what it is. If I like art done by a 4 year old elephant and it speaks to me... so be it.

I got a 75. Boooo. at least I passed. :'<

Gigandas if you´re really interested in this, you should ask for the reasons who brings that people to bought these "masterpieces".

I got 67% - I clicked what i liked, and didn't ponder to much on the idea of authenticity.
Like LisaAnn said, there are different types of abstract art. If i was to pick one, it would have to be colour orientated expressionism. I think it's more challenging, as opposed to modern day minimalism (Just a bunch of smears and splotches with pseudoinintellectual artsy sounding description ~ davinci :)

Heh. Odd. I too got a 67%, mainly because I also clicked on what I liked.

haha...I got a 50 on that quiz. Proves that I don't like to call scribbles on paper and a circle on a canvas art.

would francis bacons work be considred abstract?

Haha, those 'pro' guys must have felt like asses. I'm gonna try that quiz. ^.^

EDIT: Gee, that was a quick quiz, i got 58%. No idea if that's good or not.

i got 67% too.

w00t 100% first go

I just clicked something random. 42%, Woot i'm a genius. Lol.

I think that some abstract art is cool, but not something too simple. Like not a line or anything. I think that if it does make you think of something then it could be cool art. But a line or a circle, No... don't think so. That's just what I personally think.

woo! i got 100% too! thanks, art history 202!

92% Not bad.

100%... it's pretty obvious what's digital and what's not. It's a stupid quiz though.

Thing is is that I took this quiz before, and scored higher, and I remember Marcello taking the quiz saying you can tell what's real and not because of the digitalness. Yet, I still did bad. Meh. I'm not a great artist anyways. lol.

I got 58%.

Proves that I don't like to call scribbles on paper and a circle on a canvas art.

Same here.

It's a stupid quiz though.

Why is that?

BTW the difference between stupidity and cleverness is more subtle than some might think.
Check out: Stupid or clever?

woot, I got an 86% on Cordelia's quiz thingie \(*D*)/
I can't see the wonderfulness in abstract art :|

I got a 63% on the quiz "Stupid or Clever". I took a few random guesses. :)

I got a 63% on the quiz "Stupid or Clever". I took a few random guesses. :)

This is how it works: want to distinguish stupid from clever -- take random guesses.
True art from fake? Same thing.
BTW, there is a forum dedicated to this issue.

whats with all the negativity towards abstract art?
i think its an incredible thing to create something that isnt completly obvious in nature that pushes feeling and response.

Solve, you said it, I agree completely.
I like abstract art, all types.
The only type of art I never really enjoyed was postmodern conceptual. Not to say it's not a grand idea, it's just a lot of it is visually boring to me.

I never said I didn't enjoy abstract art. It just depends on the piece. But then again, That's like all other art. I said if its just a line or a circle I don't like it. Anyone can do that. But True abstract art I do like. Its interesting what you can interperet what It indeed is. ^^ That's what I think.

Haha...Thank you Marcus.

I never said I didn't enjoy abstract art.

You mean that you can't tell it from fakes and still enjoy it?

I can't see the wonderfulness in abstract art :|

Exactly. That's WHY it is a STUPID quiz. I didn't really care anyway, I just clicked fake or true on whichever one looked like it had a lot of work put through it (I highly doubt people put a lot of work to make abstract art). i happen to think they're both the same. Abstract could be drawn by something that a 4 year old would draw. It's like you'd give them the same grade as some professional artist on Abstract. People have different interpretations to a picture that looks nothing like a 'something.' Again, it's crap to think that if someone looks at something that could be a masterpiece when it could be an effortless work and should be given lesser notice. Fake or not fake, digitally altered or not, if I lived in the early 20th century and did abstract art, would they give me full credit and call it a masterpiece? Maybe, I wish yet again, it's different for everybody.

I think everyone should dedicate a piece to abstract just to see how hard it is to create a decent piece and notice the difficulty in doing so. I'm not saying all abstract is hard, sometimes it comes easily for others. I'm not afraid to like abstact done by a 4 year old either. Sometimes you can get very lucky with randomness and create a beautiful thing.

I'm scared to do abstract because it's not as easy as coming up with something nature has already obviously given us. I think people underestimate the beauty of it just because it's too foreign. imo, I enjoy colors most when in abstract form, because I'm not dividing my attention to object/subject/color/technicality but rather shape and color. I almost pity those who don't like abstract :(

Ok, I'm gonna do an abstract piece. and it will be awesome. ;)

I enjoy some abstract art I said, And those are not of my liking.

I know I've yet to take art history and learn about abstract art (and I'm interested in what they'll teach me), but for now I really don't like the whole 'getting lucky to have created a masterpiece' idea. 4 yr old drawings are cute and I encourage it cause they'll get better over the years, but I doubt I could ever take a piece they've done and put it next to a master's saying they got lucky and therefore, rightfully deserves the spot. In my opinion, when the artist doesn't have a clue what he/she is creating, it really subtracts from the value of the piece. Cause basically, what you get is a luck-based piece, and in no way is that 'professional' to me. I think that's another thing with abstract art is that some people think they can take advantage of it by creating luck-based pieces so people will like them. Just my thoughts...

That's WHY it is a STUPID quiz. ... (I highly doubt people put a lot of work to make abstract art). i happen to think they're both the same.

Why did you link to the quiz if it is STUPID? Also interesting thing is not when people who do not value abstract take it -- but when those who do.

Abstract art may at sometimes be a little dull or boring, but that's rare. Most of the time abstract art looks really nice!

Art history courses will deffinately provide you with more knowledge/understanding, and perhaps you still might not like the work, but once you understand the ideas that the movements came from, you might appreciate it more.

abstract art art is good.
I just don't like when they sell them for millions of dollars.

I like the Orange Human car wash in centeral park. It made alot of people go outside to see the park.

Art history courses will deffinately provide you with more knowledge/understanding, and perhaps you still might not like the work, but once you understand the ideas that the movements came from, you might appreciate it more.

What kind of understading do I need to appreciate Malevich's "Black Square"?

Why he created those works...
The Russian Revolution: Communism
The works were seen as a teaching tool about avant garde art...in which everyone could universally understand. The pieces were meant to become more complex as time went on. Malevich thought art should be part of the everyday life, and had the power to fight materialism, and bring people together.
Also in much of the modern area of abstract art people were searching to eliminate things, and find the essential...there was one particular art critic/historian who was very fundemental in this push by the name of Greensberg. (He literally would tell people what kind of art they should and should not make...believed that all classical subjects were extranious and uneeded...very interested in painting as purely painting. He loved Pollock and Frankenthaler)
Another thing about art history, not only in context of abstract or minimal works is understanding the educational background/life of the artist...many start off interested in totally different subject matter/styles, and end up going some where else. I mean think of your own work, would there not be another level of understanding if people could know where you/your ideas are growing from?

That's the basic idea behind those works... "The supremitist" (Now again, I'm not an expert, just had a few art history courses...And art history is subjective in my mind, so I'm only going based on the perspectives/teachings of the professors I've had.)

I by no means am saying you will value it either, but its likely you might see it in another light, and if not that's fine too. I personally love abstract art, and I really like some of Malevich's stuff, but overall the 2 dimensional arts are not what interests me most.

But yeah anyway, sorry for all that jibberish...but I tried to answer your question as much as I could.
The thing is though, art is judgement, so not everyone is going to like everything another does, but no doubt there will be a reaction...as abstract art rejects the classical handling of art.
What's important and what pleases you is what matters, no matter what any art history lesson says...
Yeah I gotta shut up
Alright have a nice night.

:) <3 lisa.

The thing is though, art is judgement, so not everyone is going to like everything another does

The problem is not that. Some people like horseriding, some like skiing. In mountain resorts the slopes are rated as green circle, blue square, black diamond, and double black diamond in order of increasing difficulty. Now imagine some squirt who barely got down a green circle is world-famous skier of excelence. This is what happens in modern art.

^that makes sense, Simkin. I think it would be unfair for the other competitors who try very hard to earn double black diamond and did not earn the recognition as early as the green circle competitor. Same with abstract art. But there are some good abstract art too, just good enough to be displayed in the living room; not museum. :)

there are some good abstract art too, just good enough to be displayed in the living room

Perhaps, as wallpaper?

haha ski slopes to abstract art? the persepctive of one (or a collective) and how steep ski slope is, are two different things. that being how steep a ski slope in comparison to others is able to be measured, to be obviously seen. how professional, how much effort, how much thought, soul, etc etc. is not able to be measured.

A problem with the skiing analogy is that it already assumes that abstract artists are lesser-skilled. Not to mention you are comparing a creative effort to physical exercise. While skiing may be invigorating, few people have made observations or depictions of life through their skiing. Skiing does not convey intent. You may as well assert that there are 3 levels of tests, and that abstract artists only pass the easiest test but get credit for all three. This proves nothing except that you have a low opinion of abstract artists.

Must art be professional? How dull. Yes, let each artist be judged and valued according to his or her accumulated technical skill. It's not like art is about creating images that otherwise would remain unseen, or provoking reactions, or exploring the way we see things.

And people think I love robots.

Well shouldn't art be professional when being sold for millions of dollars?? Or be professional when you're going into graphic design?? Maybe you mean to say that abstract artists should never take any courses on it cause they shouldn't learn anything that may help their work be more professional cause it's not like it really matters anyway, right? I mean gee, I don't even need to perfect my art skills in college, I should just go with what I have right now cause I don't need to have professional work in the real world. I should have an unorganized art portfolio, stick some of my random non-topnotch quality sketches in it and find a job cause I don't need to be 'professional.' Art is a career within itself, so yes, I say art should be professional if it's going to be a part of the economy.

Must art be professional? How dull. Yes, let each artist be judged and valued according to his or her accumulated technical skill. It's not like art is about creating images that otherwise would remain unseen, or provoking reactions, or exploring the way we see things.

Indeed. This is why I prepared the tutorial which enables everyone to create abstract images, which otherwise will remain unseen.

You tell 'em, Niel!!!!!!!!!! (that's all I'm going to say, I've had it with you people.)

i dont think he said that abstract art was not professional.

yeah, I know. And I agree with him. I don't agree with Zack or any of those who think that abstract art is all that great and is worth all that big prize. He said that art SHOULD be professional and I think so too because if they stuck in some 4 year old's "abstract" picture in a museum and called it abstract and a "masterpiece" and won a million dollars or something, then that's not really professional now, IS IT?? Pleaaaase, tell me I'm wrong.

[edit]I think he said that art is professional but I don't think he said that abstract art is; it's just hard to appreciate it and consider it professional art (least that's what I think). One person could look at a picture and think it's really great and another person would look at it differently and think it's not at all great. I know what he meant about why art should be professional and if abstract is professional, then they should also consider the amount of skills that the artist has in making abstract art rather than just someone who's never drawn in their life. I just think it should require just as much strategy and technique as other types of art (ie: realism, impressionism, cubism, etc.). 'cause why should abstract art be any different for all the other art that should be done professionally? If you were to look at the other types of art through its technicality, creativity, and originality then why not also for abstract? Or are the rules different for all kinds of art? Should it matter if it's done professionally or not? Let's look at a those Beginner pics then, shall we?[/edit]

i cannot emphasize enough the ability to create something not obvious in representation or nature that pulls a spectrum of emotion, ideas, response, etc. that (to me at least) is the marrow of creativity. abstract can mostly be seen as formless (past what the artist itself has intended, and what those themself know of the piece) formlessness is raw clay, that can be molded as the viewer sees fit.
does no one see the beauty behind that?

Well Solve,
Like I said... my opinion with abstract art is that I like some. If its more than a few circles and Lines, I'll probably enjoy it. I like to see what I get out of it. Things like that is very fascinating. Plus each person sees something different, which is also fascinating. I have not said that the creatiity in which it holds does not fascinate me. Maybe i'm just explaining my opinions wrong, or maybe not enough. But what you said is what I think about abstract art, but then again, Like I also said, I only enjoy some abstract art. I guess circles and lines don't give enough form to something for me to think it is something else. I don't know. But I know I just dont' like it.

I think a good idea is to type in google "abstract art" and click on the images. Are there any pleasing results? >;)
|XOD|

im not trying to force abstract art on anyone. im just saying it has validity in the art field.

I think you people should stop making up rules for art. Art doesn't have to be professional to be liked by millions, thus sold for millions. GAH!

Just for the fun of discussion, is there a difference between academic and professional art? I am asking because clip art, pop art, kitsch art, comics and cartoons can be professional (make money in other words). >:)
|XOD|

Probably, I can't give a good example though. :/
I guess the best I can come up with is our school wanted to do a competition to see who could make the best christmas card, and whoever made the best won, and was chosen to use that card at a actual holiday card that would be sold in store everywhere. Also whoever won would get extra credit.
Heh... That's probably a really bad example, but I can't really think of anything. Sorry.

How about if we take a look at those pictures in the Beginner boards and see which of those look abstract and attempt to grade them, how about that?? Wonder how many of those would be graded A+.

Wonder how many of those would be graded A+.

The website http://www.ratingart.com/ allows anyone to submit art and anyone to grade it. I submitted there the images used in the True art or a fake? quiz. Each of the images was graded over 100 times. Here are the average grades (on 1-10 scale):


image number | artist | average score
5_________ ___ fake______ ___ 2.41
4_________ ___ Malevich__ ___ 2.83
12________ ___ Albers____ ___ 2.96
1_________ ___ Klee______ ___ 2.98
7_________ ___ fake______ ___ 3.08
9_________ ___ Rothko___ ___ 3.11
11________ ___ fake______ ___ 3.49
10________ ___ fake______ ___ 3.58
3_________ ___ fake______ ___ 3.86
2_________ ___ Mondrian__ ___ 3.92
6_________ ___ fake______ ___ 4.17
8_________ ___ Kandinsky_ ___ 4.91

Keep in mind those real pieces were not digital, so it's one thing to rate it online, and another to rate the thing as you see it in person. Context is important, especially with abstract art which has a less obvious context.

On a side note, the top rated pieces on that site are absolutely dreadful: http://www.ratingart.com/view_top.html and personally not my opinion of good art.

yesterday on 20/20, they were showing these abstract paintings being sold for millions of dollars done by these so-called pros. But it got interesting when the host had these random 4 year old girls paint on a canvas and then set their work up next to the 'pro' abstract artists' pieces and see if these educated artists having studied art could tell the difference. And amazingly, these educated guys were shown these 4 year old paintings (unknowing that 4 year olds actually painted them) and describing just how expressive they were until the host told them they were done by these children and these guys just go "well then, they're geniuses."

To set the record strait: ABC first broadcasted their "You call that art?" show in March 2005. I wrote the "True art or a fake?" quiz in September 2003. This can be verified using web archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ee.ucla.edu/~simkin/true_art_or_fake_art.html
(this link did not convert correctly -it was split- becauase of the second http in the middle, so it has to be copied & pasted in the browser)
Over 20,000 people had downloaded it before ABC broadcasted their very similar quiz.

Learn how to use niftyToo

ratingart.com, that site sucks...seriously, I don't think I need to explain why either, it speaks for itself.

haha...My mom took the quiz and she got a 25. And I can't say much about abstract art since I know nothing of it. But a circle on canvas...I mean how could people call it art and sell it at a ridiculous price? Certain abstract art, I do enjoy and some, I just don't understand why it's art.

top rated pieces on that site are absolutely dreadful and personally not my opinion of good art.

That site contains images created by its users, who are not professional artists. Also you should not ridicule them for giving poor grades to great art. They were not told the names of the artists and thought that those images were created by just another user. You might have done the same.

Learn how to use niftyToo

I think that niftyToo did not work becauase of the second http in the middle of that link.

Also you should not ridicule them for giving poor grades to great art.

Nobody ridiculed anyone for such a reason.

That of course is a great website to explore the depth of meaning and quality in abstract art, a very good test. When you're done assigning arbitrary integers to random works of art devoid of any context, you can even click on their pop-down list for other rating sites and go rate some babies! After all, everything can be judged from a brief initial impression, even the value of your own flesh and blood.

I give this thread a 3.3...

Holy crap, all this time spent at 2draw when I could've been rating babies...

It's important we rate babies, everyone should have their ratting tattooed to their wrist the second they come out of the womb. It's imperative we sort out the 10's from 1's now, the human race depends on this process.

I give this thread a 3.3...

However, the "True art or afake?" quiz is discussed in this forum for the second time. See:
http://cellosoft.com/2draw/view/36839/

When you're done assigning arbitrary integers to random works of art devoid of any context,

If one assignes random integers between 1 and 10, the average is 5.5. One expects that about half would score above, and half below this average. All 12 of the masterpieces scored below 5.5. The probability for this to happen by chance (if scores were indeed given at random) is 1 in 4096.

One can also estimate the standard error of the average score. It turns out to be 0.3. Thus the average score differences bigger than 0.5 are statistically significant.

Do I have to get elementary-school on you?

Okay kids, let's play MATCH THE ADJECTIVE!
In this game, we'll try to figure out which word an adjective is being applied to. Here is an example:

"The brown dog went outside."

Now, what word does brown go with? Is it brown outside? ("NO!") Is the dog brown? ("YES!") That's right kids, brown goes with dog. Now let's try a harder one!

"When you're done assigning arbitrary integers to random works of art devoid of any context..."

This is a toughy! What word does random go with? Is it integers? ("NO!") You're right, it isn't! Is it art? ("YES!") Aha, tricked you! Random goes with works in this sentence fragment. The whole phrase is "random works of art." Now, what does that mean? It means works of art that are picked at random from a larger selection. Class dismissed!

And in case you try to justify your interpretation by saying 'arbitrary' means 'random,' the definition I was using in that statement was "determined by whim or impulse." This should have been apparent from context, specifically the last sentence of that paragraph.

pwned. I think this one needs to be locked down if the sheer insanity doesn't go down a notch or two.

What word does random go with? Is it integers? ("NO!") You're right, it isn't! Is it art? ("YES!")

It is easy to determine which noun "random" refers to. It is far more difficult to tell true art from fake in the quiz.

And in case you try to justify your interpretation by saying 'arbitrary' means 'random,' the definition I was using in that statement was "determined by whim or impulse."

Arbitrary defined as "determined by whim or impulse" is a synonym of random. Whims and impulses of a particular person have certain causes. For example, someone just got a promotion, and because of this gives high rating to a random work of art. Or someone received a reprimand and because of this rates an innocent picture lowly. Although for the perpetrator his whims and impulses are not random, for the statistician analyzing the ratings, resulting from many whims and impulses the effect of these whims and impulses is equivalent to that of a random number generator. Similarly, when you throw a coin, its motion is determined by the laws of physics. However the solutions of the equations of motion depend on initial conditions, or in other words on the exact way the coin thrown. One can say that it depends on a whim of your hand. The outcome of heads and tails is perfectly random.