David Hirschi makes moderately sized seemingly monochromatic paintings "without referents outside of paint, color and support." His paintings arguably meet the definition of nonobjective art. But, as a viewer, some of his blue paintings remind me of skies at certain times of the day and year - an abstraction of some reality. I, in effect, have made a nonobjective painting abstract, without even touching it! In this sense the idea of abstract vs nonobjective art becomes more than academic. A work of art is not complete until the viewer interacts with it. Since many viewers may interact with a work, a particular piece is always in process. Another way to look at it is when a work is finished by the artist, the work is as an infant. Over time the piece matures as a viewership responds to it.
Mark Grtojhan is well known for his colored pencil abstractions which he often subtitles "Butterfly". This 2006 encaustic on canvas (30"x24") is an homage to Grotjhan (my intent). So is this painting an abstraction of Grotjhan's work, an abstraction of butterflies or nonobjective? You decide.
Congratulations on entering the blog world. This is one more tool in communicating artistically with a audience.
ReplyDeleteI've always felt that an art work radiates energy (similar to a radioactive material such as plutonium) and thus can have radical consequences to the person who "hangs out" with the work.
Your idea of a work gaining maturity as a result of cumulative interactions with viewers reinforces the idea to me that art works are not passive objects.
There's nothing wrong with a healthy dose of mysticism!
Thanks, Paul. The key concept here is, as you say, we "hang out" with a work.
ReplyDelete