Can’t draw? Call it “abstract”

I’ve been getting more and more into abstract art over the past few years. I don’t even know what the big draw is for me, I just like it. Abstract art, though, like realist art, has its share of really poorly done work.

I live in the Sacramento area and I go to what’s called “Sacramento Second Saturday” (ugh – their website is TERRIBLE – as an aside, I offered to redo their website about three years ago and they declined, saying an overhaul was imminent; it never materialized) every month (or at least I try to if I don’t have other obligations on a Saturday night). A year ago I discovered the W Gallery in the midtown area on one of the art walks. The primary artists in the gallery are the Watt sisters (thus the W in the name of the gallery), and I was specifically drawn to Lora Watts. Her abstract works just moved me in a way that I hadn’t enjoyed for a long while. She was there (most artists are there for Second Saturday) and I chatted with her for a minute or so – she used to be a realist painter but had recently moved to abstract.

And it showed.

Just last week I was on the Second Saturday art walk again and I discovered a new gallery (midtown Sacramento is a happening place!) – well, a new location for an older gallery, Phoenix framing and art. I’d never been to the old gallery because it was too far off the beaten path so I decided to check out their new location. The entire upstairs was dedicated to Ruth Truesdell, who had some fantastic pieces on display. Some were just okay and you could tell that she spent a lot of time experimenting, but a couple of her abstracts were amazing. I spent a couple minutes talking to her about one piece in particular and she said it had over a gallon of paint on it to get that fabulous glowing / movement feel to it. I’d found my fave of the night.

On the other hand, I’ve seen SO MANY poorly done abstracts that I just sigh and usually don’t offer a second glance when it comes to abstracts. A real test of an abstract artist is this: can you actually draw, too? Do you understand design principles, too? Abstract art is just that: an abstraction of something. A thought, an idea, a face, whatever. It’s taking an emotional aspect and portraying it. My theory that “the art is the idea” continues here: I don’t care if it’s abstract or hyper-realist – if it stinks, it stinks.

Picasso is much-maligned among non-artists. “A kid could draw that,” they say. Well, maybe (but probably not) they could but what you’re missing are two vitally important things:

1. Picasso is a very good artist even if you don’t look at his abstract (cubist) works
2. Picasso’s cubist works are culturally and artistically significant, especially Guernica

Jackson Pollock is similarly maligned because it looks like so many scribbles and drips on canvas. Oh, to the uneducated, maybe, but when you understand the times and what he was trying to do (and achieved), it’s genius. The INTENTION is the art – more specifically, achieving the intention is the art.

So next time you see some scribbles that some 2-bit huckster is intending to pass off as “abstract art,” go back to your early art training and remember the elements and principles of art: {space, shape, line, texture, value, and color} composed using {space, division, balance, unity, and emphasis}. A scribble or a blob won’t have most of these, or at least won’t have any discernible intelligence behind them. Quietly scoff to yourself and move along until you find yourself a Lora Watts or a Ruth Truesdell and are able to be happy in the presence of real abstract art again.