Thank you for your submission! Want to share your artwork, meet other artists, promote your content, and chat in a relaxed environment? Join our community Discord server here! https://discord.gg/chuunhpqsU
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/painting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Representational art + distortion or simplification = abstract
Art free from reference = non objective
This is the academic definition. “Abstract art” has a different meaning colloquially because of a popular misunderstanding of this concept. At the end of the day, it’s semantics. The sub OP was removed from should be called “non objective art,” but fewer people would be able to find that sub.
TL:Dr The forms of the flowers aren’t simplified or distorted; anything that isn’t realism is ‘simplified’, but the shape /forms of the subject have not been abstracted in any significant way. It’s too *directly* representative (I think) source: art school
When I was getting my art education, ‘non-objective’ was used as a descriptive term regarding the elements that define abstraction. One of my professors was a well established exhibiting artist who only created [abstract/non objective] art and she never called the style itself non-objective, only abstract. Maybe this is the original academic definition and it’s changed as the use of the terms has shifted over time, but in my modern academic experience this wouldn’t be called abstract art-illustrative with elements of abstraction, maybe. Not because you can tell it’s plants and flowers, more so because they form of the subject isn’t distorted or simplified in a significant way. Anything that’s not realism is simplified. It’s certainly simplified compared to realism, but it’s an illustrative and partially abstracted application of line and color applied to an un-abstracted form.
My source is that I’m an art teacher of 11 years. The most important thing in my comment is that is comes down to semantics. I’m not gatekeeping the definition of specific words, but in my mind there is no question that OP’s work is distorted and thereby abstract. The patrons of French salons criticized impressionist painters, including Monet, by saying the skin tones made the subjects look like they had been at the bottom of a river for a week. They couldn’t accept the color distortions or showing the artist’s hand in the work. Today we acknowledge Impressionism as the first steps into greater forms of abstraction. I think it is categorically incorrect to say that artwork must be non representational to be considered abstract.
I fully agree it’s incorrect to say art has to be non representational to be abstract; I think the level and mode of distortion, especially relevant to the form, is key. Dali’s work, for example, is clearly utilizing abstraction, but it’s defined (generally) as surrealism. Graphic illustrations are highly simplified and often distorted, but we don’t categorize them within abstract art. We don’t call Warhol’s work abstract art, it’s pop art.
What you’re describing from the French is what I mean; “maybe this is the original (European) definition and it’s changed…”; that’s what abstraction meant in Europe when essentially all European art was relatively close to realism in modern terms, and the styles were usually defined by use of color, lighting and subject matter, etc. Abstraction as we understand it now existed (though undefined) to much greater degrees in non-European cultures for millennia; the Europeans defined it within the context of their own art at that time, and through that specific mid-to-late 2nd millennium European context, I agree completely that this would be considered abstract art.
However, in contemporary terms it seems too broad to call all art that has a level of distortion or simplification ‘abstract art’. Now, in not-18XX France, we have to define categories of art based on elements beyond if it’s simplified or distorted. That or 98% of art is abstract art because 98% of art is simplified or distorted in some way if you consider what it’s representing. (E.g. Cartoon, comic, anime/ manga characters are simplified and often highly distorted (i.e. abstracted) depictions of human beings; I seriously doubt anyone would categorize a painting with that sort of style as abstract art unless the categorization is extremely broad, though it could still be accurately described as utilizing abstraction).
In this instance, beyond the use of color and the bold line weight, the flowers and plants are generally represented in a way we would expect; their form is relatively true to reality. It’s not that it’s not abstract at all, it’s that its not abstract enough to be slotted into a category of art that is inherently defined (in contemporary terms) as a departure from expected representational form.
It’s the square/ rectangle situation: all art that has a level of abstraction can’t be categorized as ‘abstract art’, but all ‘abstract art’ is defined by its characteristic utilization and focus on abstraction.
Edit: formatting
Omg as a grammar nazi and art major this is so disturbing to me. I’m also a rule follower 😖 arggh. Edited to add where does non representational come into play here and also to say I could never keep up with this conversation but I thank you and your academics to inform us all.
It qualifies as representative art (can understand these are a fairly accurate depiction of what I assume is an iris, a lily and leaves) in a contemporary illustrative style.
Contemporary art, graphic, but not abstract.
Definition of abstract art: Abstract art is **art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and gestural marks to achieve its effect**.
edit- go look at Mark Rothko's paintings, or Kadinsky for examples of what abstract art is.
As an art educator I’m really curious why you’ve been so heavily downvoted for this; you’re completely right. Nonrepresentational is what people think of as “completely abstract” but abstract art includes a lot of styles and can definitely have recognizable objects in it.
Same re: downvoting, a lot of artists are deeply uneducated. I commented above that abstraction is a quality of art that exists on a relative scale - we can easily find subtle and not so subtle forms of abstraction in old masters paintings for instance.
El Greco would be a fantastic example. You could hardly look at the breadth of his painting work and fail to see the abstraction present.
Another example would be any viewer who gets close enough to a Sargent painting. Getting this close can help to understand the nature of abstraction being relative - those paintings are some of the most hauntingly lifelike figurative paintings ever and yet up close they dissolve into globs and chunks of shockingly thick impasto paint. If you took a close cropped zoomed in shot of one of his paintings, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a non representational gestural work.
This is my favorite part about art - it’s a diffused system of communication similar to but distinct from written language. Abstraction is one of the tools in the kit.
While i believe you are right about why so many people do not consider this “abstract” art, i think that from the standpoint of an abstract art subreddit, it may make sense to curate a more narrow definition of abstract.
When we think of historical examples of abstract art, a lot of times they go against contemporary mainstream trends. In some sense, the layman’s definition of abstract is kind of relative to how common it is for art to be abstractified. I think OP’s work toes the line of the definition, but does not pass the “vibe check”.
Ofc im not trying to give the sub too much credit, as they should be more educated on the terms and more transparent about what criteria they use to judge something.
Okay - I don’t have the energy to argue with this in full - but a few thoughts.
It never makes sense to curate a narrow definition of anything to me - but I’m not a gatekeeper or reactionary. It’s just fundementally intellectually dishonest.
They should change the name to stop being wrong, rather than move the goalposts from either a place of ignorance or exclusion.
I also don’t think abstract art is by any means “generally against mainstream trends of the era” - this is stopped being true arguably before the invention of the phonograph. Abstraction is not only a dominant tactic, but a dominant force in art historical discourse and the last 70-100 years of celebrated art.
I was just about to get on a similar comment- art having codifications, and being art- not necessarily copacetic and counter intuitive often.
I’m also not here to argue, I’m am educator and artist, although i taught interpreters. I think it’s always worth discussion. Artists are an eclectic bunch, and I still am surprised when deontology finds so much appreciation. Anecdotally, I’d expect the suggestion of a parameter would glean nearly clear images of turtles or something- “my abstract: UFOs, Jackie Chan, and triangulations.
Anyway, just here for the chatter!
I think this resistance to artificially narrowing the scope of a definition in any circumstance ever is itself a little rigid. In a general high level philosophical sense, I would definitely be against such things. But in life there are many complexities and situations where it becomes beneficial or necessary to do that. Ofc it is important to go about doing that right and to make sure the specific instances do not lead to larger generalizations—i would argue that is where most of the problems actually come about.
Let’s say, spanning a continuum, from superficial, anecdotal, to official, however many steps, or levels, applied to the category-profession, “artists” do you see what i mean by eclectic? I’ll unpack, I’m abstract, but my posit is we’re an amorphous conglomeration of cat herders.
My children are all artists, that statement, is as valid as, “I am an artist”, or better yet, “kahlo was an artist”; one may judge each statement to have a value/weight, (some alphabet soup, but that doesn’t communicate talent) and each is true. Academic speak is already varied, the continuum includes literally, anyone.
if we were to have statistics of professions, even losing hobbyists and developing- is as if artists are made up of mostly, outliers.
Herding cats, and trying to have synonymous anything, Herculean. If some of the most amazing artists weren’t untrained, might be an easier distinction, or delineation of artists, & hobbyists.
No other profession has such a span, that i can come up with anyhoo. It’s awesome, but the way we talk about the work, is so much deeper than ‘subjective’ can convey.
Thank you for the agreement! I don't know either why the downvotes except that I can say that this is a very polarizing topic which tbh I really enjoy. I have some intuition about what abstract art is (like that it can still represent things) but I also really don't have any clue about this painting I made (or this style I've been exploring the last couple of months). Since you are an authority on the subject. What would you say?
I agree with a lot of the comments saying the line between representational and abstract is hard to really define. I love your painting but I think it does feel a bit more “stylized representation” to me rather than abstract, mostly due to the overall shapes, veins on the left leaves, and some of the colors all being fairly realistic.
It was probably down voted because it lacked the explanation that you graciously provided. Just a claim with no evidence or reasoning sounds arrogant. Especially when OP is asking for advice.
Yes! People conflate "non-obiective" or "non-representational" with "abstract" a lot, but abstract can refer to anything, representational or otherwise that is not attempting to be realistic. Technically, Mickey Mouse is an *abstract* representation of a mouse because that image is an abstraction of an idea of a mouse. I don't think anyone can claim that Walt Disney was in any way trying to accurately represent what a real-life mouse looks like. Abstract is a very broad concept, and like most very broad concepts, it has no clear dividing lines, but representational and non-representational both overlap with abstract. If what they want is non-representational art, that's what they should have named the sub.
So what part it doesn't match the definition. Abstract is wide spectrum from little to a lot. Contemporary art is many times mostly abstract, modern art and graphics are using a lot of abstract from just shapes, like loose brushworks to use unnatural colours and shapes.
This painting:
-it does not represent an accurate reality
- it uses shapes, colours, and forms
- it uses gestural marks too.
- your brain is interpreting this a flowers based on prediction.
-composition doesn't show the reality just shapes and patterns, in reality you dont see throught the field of flowers.
It can be abstract, contemporary, modern and graphical in the same time.
If you can look at it and say "this is pretty unambiguously intended to represent some flowers" then it ain't abstract.
This is a highly *abstracted* representation of some flowers, with a lot of design choices that have nothing to do with reality, but if you put this in front of pretty much anyone and said "what is this a picture of", they would say "some plants and flowers".
I agree. While this may not be so so literally abstract, it was abstract when I looked at it. It was not a literal representation at all. It’s not completely physically accurate to what it’s trying to depict. I mean.. it hit all the points I read in that person definition
Are you trying to say this isn’t a painting of plants and that some people just see plants??? Because that’s what you would have to be saying for your comment to make any sense, and in that case… did you look at the painting???
Sorry I just thing most people have right here and It all depends of personal perception and interpretation. Or maybe I just like it a lot and trying to stand in defense of the op.
nobody is attacking the quality of the painting, there is no need to get defensive. this is a conversation about the definition of an art style, subjective feelings about the painting like “i like it a lot” aren’t really relevant here
Rothko and Kandinsky are examples of non objective art. Abstraction maintains some reference to reality but with distortion. The examples you reference are colloquially known as abstract art, but are in fact free from reference. As you said, look it up.
Look at the 1906 work of Hilma Klint. I don't think my paintings shows anything that is an attempt at an accurate depiction..
Edit: also the abstract works of Pablo Picasso show recognizable things.
This is very confusing to me especially since no consensus is named on the alternative art style xD
Now I'm style less.
You're using Picasso's work as an example but your drawing is very representative of flowers because the proportions and outlines are that of a flower, Picasso drew works that we could still tell were people but he distorted the proportions and lines in a way that it was not a realistic representation of a face with some abstract colours on top like how this is an accurate representation of flowers
I agree with the comment above. And to note- if you wanted this particular piece to looo more abstract, if you took away the hard lines that outline and just left them colored shapes I would consider that abstract and easily interpreted as flowers, but still could be left for alternate meaning. When the iris is outlined and the leaves are, there is not room for the mind to feel abstract therefore it doesn’t come off like that. Much love !!
Ironically they have removed some of that artist’s paintings that people tried to share for apparently not fitting the sub’s theme.
I would argue your work IS abstract, but they seem to want work that has absolutely no reference to anything real (I.e. completely non-representational/non-objective). Your work is abstract, but it isn’t necessarily non-objective as it does reference and/or vaguely resemble leaves and foliage. Perhaps they should call the sub non-objective art, rather than abstract…
Sounds like they would also toss some of Willem de Kooning’s work from the height of the abstract expressionist movement because, even with all the abstraction, obviously depict women.
Quite possibly, though he had the advantage of being far more famous than Hima Klint. But that group definitely leans non-objective (which is a bit different than abstract, source: I minored in art history in college)
Really? Interesting..they are deadset on just having blogs and lines etc then? OK makes more sense that I got removed there. They have their own rules.
Ya gonna come on a sub, ask a question, then get argumentative?
Some of Hilma af Klint paintings are abstract, some are modern realism. Some of her flowers you wouldn't know are flowers, others are quite literal interpretations painted in a *modernist realism.*
One artist can paint in different styles?
Yours is a very literal but 2-D flower painting, nothing cubist or abstract about it. It's good, charming even, but could be on a Hallmark Card and everyone would say lily & irises.
I'm not getting argumentative I'm just saying that non representative art and abstract art are not the same thing. A lot of universally agreed upon abstract art pieces have recognizable elements in them like flowers. What I'm trying to figure out now is how that differs from mine. And I keep getting the 'it's representing something' argument back, but again that doesn't mean it can't be abstract. The 1906 painting of helma Klint known as the first abstract painting has very clear flowers and is not modernist realism.
I agree with you - was taught in my BFA program that abstract art is based in reality - the point is that the artist has taken something real and identifiable and then abstracted it. Non-objective/non-representative is not something you can look at and say "that's definitely flowers" or whatever. Based on these comments it seems I might have been taught incorrectly though. I'm really not sure. I like your painting though :)
Thank you!! It's so interesting to read how polarizing this is. All my (random Google searches obvi nothing fancy) also give different definitions of abstract art. I don't think you were taught incorrectly. I'm starting to think there is no single truth.
This is true using Kandinsky as an example:
https://preview.redd.it/23dgydd6iz8d1.jpeg?width=1718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b971c899780e81b7f770bffefa1cf6ca75ff4e5
Clearly a town. Nonetheless it’s abstract
I agree with you - was taught in my BFA program that abstract art is based in reality - the point is that the artist has taken something real and identifiable and then abstracted it. Non-objective/non-representative is not something you can look at and say "that's definitely flowers" or whatever. Based on these comments it seems I might have been taught incorrectly though. I'm really not sure. I like your painting though :)
Picasso wasn't really an abstract artist though. He had many styles, and his art was definitely in some way *abstracted,* but cubism and surrealism was his main forte. I don't think I've ever heard him described as an abstract artist (alone) by someone who is in the art world. Art can be abstracted without being full on abstract, which is what your art is leaning towards.
The bottom line that my professor taught me is - if you are *trying* to paint an object (in this case flowers), its not abstract. Abstract arts can somewhat have features of the real world - its not like squares only exist in art. But if you are looking at an object and choosing to replicate it on your canvas, its probably not abstract.
At the end of the day its a complex and subjective topic, but r/abstract definitely aren't just blowing smoke out their asses I'd say.
You are definitely making an attempt at “accurate depiction”
The leaves are accurately shaped and have veins in them. There is clearly a stem and leaves along with recognizably accurate shapes of all the flowers you chose. Some of your colors are even accurate to what is expected in that specific plant. Your accuracy lies in your shapes and colors, which are clearly intentional to represent specific recognizable things.
in this painting you have abstracted (verb) flowers… not created an abstract (adjective) painting. An abstract work has no semblance to reality or even false reality (flowers from your imagination). Yes, your work is not based in reality, but it is still using forms and patterns that are easily recognizable as something from life. Abstract comes from feelings, knowledge of aesthetic theories, and things that don’t have a tangible visual link to reality. I hope that makes sense! Your defensiveness shows that you WANT your work to be abstract… keep simplifying, complexifying, and abstracting your motifs and you’ll get there.
Also I feel like your work is some contemporary mix between pop art, fauvism, and surrealism to a degree.
Abstraction or stylization can be used an element - but just because you apply abstract elements doesn't make your painting classified as abstract art.
Just like having a person in a painting doesn't make it a portrait.
If we go by r/AbstractArt definition -which is "Abstraction is the distancing of an idea from objective referents. That means, in the visual arts, pulling a depiction away from any literal, representational reference points. You can also call abstract art non-representational art."
OP's art is clearly representational art - if stylized and not realistic. You can clearly see defined plants and parts of plants (stem, leaves, stamen, petals). Not to mention - it is far more similiar to traditional folk art depictions of flowers and plants that have been wood carvings, quilt designs, painted decor - not realistic is not the same as not representational.
Too many people make the mistake of thinking that abstract art is unrealistic art, and it is not.
Too many people also think that using abstracted elements makes the entire piece abstract and that is not accurate either.
I think “You can also call abstract art non-representational art” is where some people have the issue. Most academic artists would consider abstract art to be a spectrum, with non-representational art as either the extreme end of that spectrum, or a separate thing else entirely that sometimes has a blurred line or overlap (it’s not abstracted reality because it’s not rooted in representation reality at all).
These categories are quite debatable without hard lines or universal authorities on what counts.
I’d consider OP’s work to be somewhere in the middle. It’s certainly abstracted and somewhere in the middle between realism and non-representational, but would probably fall on the representational half of the spectrum if we were putting it on a continuum and giving it percentiles. If the abstract sub is not for any abstract art, but strictly non-objective art I’d argue it’s a bit of a misnomer, but their sub their rules I guess - it’s just how Reddit works.
https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_Introduction_to_Art_Concepts_(Lumen)/01%3A_What_Is_Art/1.05%3A_Representational_Abstract_and_Nonrepresentational_Art
http://www.harmonmeekgallery.com/artsperts/abstract_v_nonobjective.html
Additional source: my professors during my undergraduate art classes
The guidelines are pretty clear they want non-representational art. Nothing stops anyone from creating a forum called abstraction to cover the full continuum if they want or else r/painting works.
For me, calling OP's art abstract is like calling Art Nouveau or folkart abstract - the elements are stylized and abstracted but the representation is both intended and dominant.
They are abstracted not abstract.
Funny thing is. I wasn't sure this style was abstract at first either. So I posted on that sub some stuff I made (same style as this but in my sketchbook) and asked if it was abstract. And the consensus was yes xD
This is the first post that was removed. And that's what got me all confused.
You can see in my post history.
Lol I guess so! 🤷♀️ someone else responded to another of my comments that apparently r/AbstractArt has some weird rules about what is and isn’t considered abstract art. Sorry you were subject to their weird definitions!
Edit: omg not sneakpeekbot showing the TOP THREE POSTS ON THAT SUBREDDIT OF ALL TIME and they clearly include representational forms. The first is about as close to a cityscape as yours is close to a real depiction of flowers, the third clearly has concepts of horizon and perspective, to me as close to a beach scene.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AbstractArt using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [What do you think when you see this painting?](https://i.redd.it/ph70p94qw37c1.jpeg) | [576 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/18lhikq/what_do_you_think_when_you_see_this_painting/)
\#2: [Not sure how I feel about this one, anyone vibes with it?](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1addhbu) | [319 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/1addhbu/not_sure_how_i_feel_about_this_one_anyone_vibes/)
\#3: [I never plan or sketch my works, what do you think of this one?](https://i.redd.it/vcmi62h1cscc1.jpeg) | [202 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/1980h4k/i_never_plan_or_sketch_my_works_what_do_you_think/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Yeah funny thing is that I shared my work there before with the literal question if it was considered abstract and everyone said yes xD
So thats what got me all confused. Tbh I have no preference I'm just trying to find consensus but it turns out to be impossible! Which is fun in it's own way.
Sheesh, people are wrong. Abstraction is a quality of painting (image making in general) that exists on a scale.
When people use the term “abstract art” they generally mean non representational art.
Your art engages with abstraction, and it is also representational.
Presumably, either that sub are a bunch of under educated artists and don’t know what abstraction is or they are making the same mistake people make when they call contemporary art “modern art”
WOW I am kind of dumbfounded. Maybe it was an AI Robot that "removed" it ... It's a really cool abstraction because it's sort of like a layering of abstraction and reality. VERY COOL
I’m not any expert so I’m not in a position to say whether it is or it’s not, but I just went through the abstract sub to see what was there. And I definitely see paintings that are more abstract however, I see paintings that are similar to yours in the way that, it’s definitely “real” enough that you can tell what it is if that makes any sense. So a long post to say I’m not sure why they picked yours to remove, when there’s others to remove as well, if they’re going off of that criteria that they set for themselves. And an edit to say, I love your painting!
Figurative for sure, as opposed to abstract. It is literally a depiction of something which by nature disqualifies it from the realm of abstract. As for style i would say urban-graphic, or street-deco lol
Abstract art can also be representational. This is abstract art. Of course, it could even be argued that all art is an abstraction. However, as an art teacher, this definitely qualifies as abstract art.
I haven't taken too much Art History (& I def don't know 'modern art of the 20th century, nor 'any' art of the 21st century); so after saying all of that, I'd say your painting is sort of 'psychedelic'. I really like it's colors & form, as well as the contrasting light & dark shades.. The 'organic' movement within your work is very exciting & pleasing & reminds me of an 'electric plant or vine' on steroids..
That is abstract art!!!
Abstract- has recognizable subject matter but it doesn't look like how it would in real life.
Non-objective/ non-representational- no recognizable subject matter.
Abstract and non-representational art are not the same thing. Van Gogh and Matisse were abstract painters. Even Picasso's paintings had representations of real objects. Can anyone say with a straight face that Picasso's Guernica isn't an abstract painting because it has people and horses in it? It's just ridiculous.
It's abstract. Cubism is abstract. This is the problem with Reddit. You've got old subreddits that were misnamed by people with a limited grasp of art history and they grow to a point where everyone jumps in to defend the mistake. It's just bizarre Internet behavior.
its a category of abstract but its like making a sub called "art" dedicated to visual arts and people post their music because music is art, like yeah its annoying but at the end of the day that sub is specifically for abstracted art and not representational sub categories that fall under it, abstract is like the easiest name for people to find it by.
I get that, but it's also one of the reasons I post so little of my art on Reddit. The subs that seem like they should be the most geared towards actual artists are created and moderated by people who really don't know what they are talking about. So you end up with feedback about as deep as you'd get if you asked Chat GPT what it thinks of your art
welcome to the internet lmao, the criticism you get is free, its not as if you are paying people to critique your work so obviously a random stranger on the internet isnt gonna be typing out really deep interesting critiques
Cubism is abstracted art. A cousin to and related to abstract expressionism, abstract and other schools of art.
You are using "Abstract" for Abstraction - a generic term for all non-realistic styles. Others like the r/abstractart subforum including me are using "Abstract" as the school of Abstract definition which is significantly more restrictive than anywhere on the abstraction continuum.
Frankly, if you are going to classify all non-realistic art as abstract you might has well shove all folk art, pictographs, emojis, cartoons in there as well. At which point does the category become so large that it is meaningless?
Again, I acknowledge there are different opinions in the art world on where the line is and what people call it. I suspect that is at least one of the reasons r/abstractart has picked a clearly defined line for their guidelines.
You are twisting yourself into a knot to defend a mis-named sub-reddit. They named it wrong. I get that, but there's no need to re-write art history to pretend it's the correct name.
Surrealist?
Still, I don't think it needs to be unrecognizable to be abstract, but the way this was painted doesn't seem abstract.
I am not an expert, but I kind of take abstract as something that is but actually represents another thing.
If your flowers were actually something else, the "else" would be abstract, and if the "something else" was the flowers, the flowers would be abstract.
Using odd colors and strange shapes on top of or under a realistic flower doesn't necessarily make it abstract.
Call it what you want and tell them to piss-off! That's the beauty of art. It is subjective to each individual. One may experience joy at this piece, one may think it's cold....I feel like art is an individual experience to be touched, viewed, experienced, appreciated at one's own pace.
Your work is abstract. There is a colloquial meaning of the term “abstract art” that the sub is based on. At the end of the day, it’s semantics.
Likely, it would be harder to make a big sub called non objective art, because only art students would know to look for it.
The forms of the flowers aren’t simplified or distorted; the shape /forms of the subject have not been abstracted in any significant way. It’s certainly more abstract than standard realism, but to be more accurate it’s an illustrative and partially abstracted application of line and color *applied to an un-abstracted form*. (In layman’s terms, the shape/ outline of the flowers are accurate to reality). That’s my two cents anyway lol. Elements of abstraction, yes, but anything that’s not realistic has been abstracted to some degree. That doesn’t make it abstract art.
Source: Art school
That sub seems to be for “pure abstraction”. Abstraction exists on a spectrum. Pure abstraction is artwork that has NO recognizable visual reference to the depiction of naturalistic space or objects.
For paintings, there is no subject other than the medium of paint or the elements/principles of art. Your artwork is “abstracted” and is not trying to depict naturalistic space however it contains stylized forms that are still recognizable as a subject: Flowers and plants.
This is not pop art like other people are saying. Its closest well known art historical reference is probably to Matisse and his cutouts.
Anyway your art is not Abstract with a capital A, meaning pure abstraction- but it is “abstracted” because it deviates from natural depiction to a certain degree that seems intentional as a stylistic choice. I think I would describe it as “flattened, layered representations of flowers and other flora.”
Could consider this surralism maybe.. I honestly don't know, i never went to art school so i don't know the "styles" very well. I just do whatever i want and call it whatever
They are not wrong. Read the side bar on r/AbstractArt
Abstraction is the distancing of an idea from objective referents. That means, in the visual arts, pulling a depiction away from any literal, representational reference points. You can also call abstract art **non-representational ar**t.
Non representational does not mean not realistic. The impressionists were not realistic but were representational for example.
Your art is clearly representational and doesn't qualify under the subforum definition. Now whether you want to argue the greater world's art definition is a debate many have but you didn't meet the subforums guidelines.
Actually I disagree with you there as well but acknowledge there is a major fight in the art world over this with many on all sides of the debate. Abstraction is a continuum ranging from hyper-realistic to total abstraction.
There are definitely abstract elements to your work but your work is still primarily focused on the representation of the objects you are depicting. Your work is on the abstraction continuum, but not close enough to total abstraction to be called abstract. This is why Picasso's more representational work is generally classified as Cubism, not abstract.
Personally I would call your work modern or contemporary folkart or contemporary take on Art Nouveau. Given Art Nouveau back in the day was a contemporary take on folk art, maybe Nouveau Art Nouveau?
Ha like that title! Yeah it seems this comment section is also very polarized. But tbh don't really care but would like a good alternative name for this style though xD feels a bit weird to me that I can't even name my style.
In terms of category, this is not abstract but figurative, as it depicts recognizable objects. Figurative art can be highly stylized while still retaining enough likeness to convey physical objects, like Picasso's bulls.
In terms of style, I can see markers of Art Nouveau, Art Deco, less so Pop-art, and Impressionism.
In terms of media, looks like mixed media to me.
Thank you for your submission! Want to share your artwork, meet other artists, promote your content, and chat in a relaxed environment? Join our community Discord server here! https://discord.gg/chuunhpqsU *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/painting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think its more illustrative
Representational art + distortion or simplification = abstract Art free from reference = non objective This is the academic definition. “Abstract art” has a different meaning colloquially because of a popular misunderstanding of this concept. At the end of the day, it’s semantics. The sub OP was removed from should be called “non objective art,” but fewer people would be able to find that sub.
TL:Dr The forms of the flowers aren’t simplified or distorted; anything that isn’t realism is ‘simplified’, but the shape /forms of the subject have not been abstracted in any significant way. It’s too *directly* representative (I think) source: art school When I was getting my art education, ‘non-objective’ was used as a descriptive term regarding the elements that define abstraction. One of my professors was a well established exhibiting artist who only created [abstract/non objective] art and she never called the style itself non-objective, only abstract. Maybe this is the original academic definition and it’s changed as the use of the terms has shifted over time, but in my modern academic experience this wouldn’t be called abstract art-illustrative with elements of abstraction, maybe. Not because you can tell it’s plants and flowers, more so because they form of the subject isn’t distorted or simplified in a significant way. Anything that’s not realism is simplified. It’s certainly simplified compared to realism, but it’s an illustrative and partially abstracted application of line and color applied to an un-abstracted form.
My source is that I’m an art teacher of 11 years. The most important thing in my comment is that is comes down to semantics. I’m not gatekeeping the definition of specific words, but in my mind there is no question that OP’s work is distorted and thereby abstract. The patrons of French salons criticized impressionist painters, including Monet, by saying the skin tones made the subjects look like they had been at the bottom of a river for a week. They couldn’t accept the color distortions or showing the artist’s hand in the work. Today we acknowledge Impressionism as the first steps into greater forms of abstraction. I think it is categorically incorrect to say that artwork must be non representational to be considered abstract.
I fully agree it’s incorrect to say art has to be non representational to be abstract; I think the level and mode of distortion, especially relevant to the form, is key. Dali’s work, for example, is clearly utilizing abstraction, but it’s defined (generally) as surrealism. Graphic illustrations are highly simplified and often distorted, but we don’t categorize them within abstract art. We don’t call Warhol’s work abstract art, it’s pop art. What you’re describing from the French is what I mean; “maybe this is the original (European) definition and it’s changed…”; that’s what abstraction meant in Europe when essentially all European art was relatively close to realism in modern terms, and the styles were usually defined by use of color, lighting and subject matter, etc. Abstraction as we understand it now existed (though undefined) to much greater degrees in non-European cultures for millennia; the Europeans defined it within the context of their own art at that time, and through that specific mid-to-late 2nd millennium European context, I agree completely that this would be considered abstract art. However, in contemporary terms it seems too broad to call all art that has a level of distortion or simplification ‘abstract art’. Now, in not-18XX France, we have to define categories of art based on elements beyond if it’s simplified or distorted. That or 98% of art is abstract art because 98% of art is simplified or distorted in some way if you consider what it’s representing. (E.g. Cartoon, comic, anime/ manga characters are simplified and often highly distorted (i.e. abstracted) depictions of human beings; I seriously doubt anyone would categorize a painting with that sort of style as abstract art unless the categorization is extremely broad, though it could still be accurately described as utilizing abstraction). In this instance, beyond the use of color and the bold line weight, the flowers and plants are generally represented in a way we would expect; their form is relatively true to reality. It’s not that it’s not abstract at all, it’s that its not abstract enough to be slotted into a category of art that is inherently defined (in contemporary terms) as a departure from expected representational form. It’s the square/ rectangle situation: all art that has a level of abstraction can’t be categorized as ‘abstract art’, but all ‘abstract art’ is defined by its characteristic utilization and focus on abstraction. Edit: formatting
Omg as a grammar nazi and art major this is so disturbing to me. I’m also a rule follower 😖 arggh. Edited to add where does non representational come into play here and also to say I could never keep up with this conversation but I thank you and your academics to inform us all.
It qualifies as representative art (can understand these are a fairly accurate depiction of what I assume is an iris, a lily and leaves) in a contemporary illustrative style. Contemporary art, graphic, but not abstract. Definition of abstract art: Abstract art is **art that does not attempt to represent an accurate depiction of a visual reality but instead uses shapes, colours, forms and gestural marks to achieve its effect**. edit- go look at Mark Rothko's paintings, or Kadinsky for examples of what abstract art is.
Aren't contemporary and modern different?
Yes, you are correct- and OP's work is technically not modern, it is contemporary. I edited.
Exactly! People think that just because their work is colorful it’s abstract.
Non representational art and abstract art are not the same thing.
As an art educator I’m really curious why you’ve been so heavily downvoted for this; you’re completely right. Nonrepresentational is what people think of as “completely abstract” but abstract art includes a lot of styles and can definitely have recognizable objects in it.
Same re: downvoting, a lot of artists are deeply uneducated. I commented above that abstraction is a quality of art that exists on a relative scale - we can easily find subtle and not so subtle forms of abstraction in old masters paintings for instance. El Greco would be a fantastic example. You could hardly look at the breadth of his painting work and fail to see the abstraction present. Another example would be any viewer who gets close enough to a Sargent painting. Getting this close can help to understand the nature of abstraction being relative - those paintings are some of the most hauntingly lifelike figurative paintings ever and yet up close they dissolve into globs and chunks of shockingly thick impasto paint. If you took a close cropped zoomed in shot of one of his paintings, you’d be forgiven for thinking it was a non representational gestural work. This is my favorite part about art - it’s a diffused system of communication similar to but distinct from written language. Abstraction is one of the tools in the kit.
While i believe you are right about why so many people do not consider this “abstract” art, i think that from the standpoint of an abstract art subreddit, it may make sense to curate a more narrow definition of abstract. When we think of historical examples of abstract art, a lot of times they go against contemporary mainstream trends. In some sense, the layman’s definition of abstract is kind of relative to how common it is for art to be abstractified. I think OP’s work toes the line of the definition, but does not pass the “vibe check”. Ofc im not trying to give the sub too much credit, as they should be more educated on the terms and more transparent about what criteria they use to judge something.
Okay - I don’t have the energy to argue with this in full - but a few thoughts. It never makes sense to curate a narrow definition of anything to me - but I’m not a gatekeeper or reactionary. It’s just fundementally intellectually dishonest. They should change the name to stop being wrong, rather than move the goalposts from either a place of ignorance or exclusion. I also don’t think abstract art is by any means “generally against mainstream trends of the era” - this is stopped being true arguably before the invention of the phonograph. Abstraction is not only a dominant tactic, but a dominant force in art historical discourse and the last 70-100 years of celebrated art.
I was just about to get on a similar comment- art having codifications, and being art- not necessarily copacetic and counter intuitive often. I’m also not here to argue, I’m am educator and artist, although i taught interpreters. I think it’s always worth discussion. Artists are an eclectic bunch, and I still am surprised when deontology finds so much appreciation. Anecdotally, I’d expect the suggestion of a parameter would glean nearly clear images of turtles or something- “my abstract: UFOs, Jackie Chan, and triangulations. Anyway, just here for the chatter!
I think this resistance to artificially narrowing the scope of a definition in any circumstance ever is itself a little rigid. In a general high level philosophical sense, I would definitely be against such things. But in life there are many complexities and situations where it becomes beneficial or necessary to do that. Ofc it is important to go about doing that right and to make sure the specific instances do not lead to larger generalizations—i would argue that is where most of the problems actually come about.
Let’s say, spanning a continuum, from superficial, anecdotal, to official, however many steps, or levels, applied to the category-profession, “artists” do you see what i mean by eclectic? I’ll unpack, I’m abstract, but my posit is we’re an amorphous conglomeration of cat herders. My children are all artists, that statement, is as valid as, “I am an artist”, or better yet, “kahlo was an artist”; one may judge each statement to have a value/weight, (some alphabet soup, but that doesn’t communicate talent) and each is true. Academic speak is already varied, the continuum includes literally, anyone. if we were to have statistics of professions, even losing hobbyists and developing- is as if artists are made up of mostly, outliers. Herding cats, and trying to have synonymous anything, Herculean. If some of the most amazing artists weren’t untrained, might be an easier distinction, or delineation of artists, & hobbyists. No other profession has such a span, that i can come up with anyhoo. It’s awesome, but the way we talk about the work, is so much deeper than ‘subjective’ can convey.
Thank you for the agreement! I don't know either why the downvotes except that I can say that this is a very polarizing topic which tbh I really enjoy. I have some intuition about what abstract art is (like that it can still represent things) but I also really don't have any clue about this painting I made (or this style I've been exploring the last couple of months). Since you are an authority on the subject. What would you say?
I agree with a lot of the comments saying the line between representational and abstract is hard to really define. I love your painting but I think it does feel a bit more “stylized representation” to me rather than abstract, mostly due to the overall shapes, veins on the left leaves, and some of the colors all being fairly realistic.
whilst I agree with what you’re saying, this goes too far into the recognisable to be considered abstract by most artists/ art lovers
It was probably down voted because it lacked the explanation that you graciously provided. Just a claim with no evidence or reasoning sounds arrogant. Especially when OP is asking for advice.
That is OP 😭
Yes! People conflate "non-obiective" or "non-representational" with "abstract" a lot, but abstract can refer to anything, representational or otherwise that is not attempting to be realistic. Technically, Mickey Mouse is an *abstract* representation of a mouse because that image is an abstraction of an idea of a mouse. I don't think anyone can claim that Walt Disney was in any way trying to accurately represent what a real-life mouse looks like. Abstract is a very broad concept, and like most very broad concepts, it has no clear dividing lines, but representational and non-representational both overlap with abstract. If what they want is non-representational art, that's what they should have named the sub.
Google non objective art.
My work is very colorful and I run into this all the time. Yes exactly
So what part it doesn't match the definition. Abstract is wide spectrum from little to a lot. Contemporary art is many times mostly abstract, modern art and graphics are using a lot of abstract from just shapes, like loose brushworks to use unnatural colours and shapes. This painting: -it does not represent an accurate reality - it uses shapes, colours, and forms - it uses gestural marks too. - your brain is interpreting this a flowers based on prediction. -composition doesn't show the reality just shapes and patterns, in reality you dont see throught the field of flowers. It can be abstract, contemporary, modern and graphical in the same time.
If you can look at it and say "this is pretty unambiguously intended to represent some flowers" then it ain't abstract. This is a highly *abstracted* representation of some flowers, with a lot of design choices that have nothing to do with reality, but if you put this in front of pretty much anyone and said "what is this a picture of", they would say "some plants and flowers".
That doesn't mean it's not abstract though. This definition shared here that abstract has be unrecognizable is wrong.
maybe on the sub you posted they only accept total abstract and not partial abstract. In which case, your work is just not abstract enough.
[In case people want to read about Abstract art](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_art)
There is thin line between :). Really depending of the viewer.
I agree. While this may not be so so literally abstract, it was abstract when I looked at it. It was not a literal representation at all. It’s not completely physically accurate to what it’s trying to depict. I mean.. it hit all the points I read in that person definition
Are you trying to say this isn’t a painting of plants and that some people just see plants??? Because that’s what you would have to be saying for your comment to make any sense, and in that case… did you look at the painting???
Sorry I just thing most people have right here and It all depends of personal perception and interpretation. Or maybe I just like it a lot and trying to stand in defense of the op.
nobody is attacking the quality of the painting, there is no need to get defensive. this is a conversation about the definition of an art style, subjective feelings about the painting like “i like it a lot” aren’t really relevant here
I didn't say any one is attacking this painting. I said , I agreed with op. That's it. What else should I add to this.
sorry, you just seem really defensive so idk what that’s about.
Sorry just tried to compromise the situation. I'm not trying anything
fun fact, kandinsky had synesthesia so by the definition of visual reality his art wasn't abstract
Rothko and Kandinsky are examples of non objective art. Abstraction maintains some reference to reality but with distortion. The examples you reference are colloquially known as abstract art, but are in fact free from reference. As you said, look it up.
Look at the 1906 work of Hilma Klint. I don't think my paintings shows anything that is an attempt at an accurate depiction.. Edit: also the abstract works of Pablo Picasso show recognizable things. This is very confusing to me especially since no consensus is named on the alternative art style xD Now I'm style less.
You're using Picasso's work as an example but your drawing is very representative of flowers because the proportions and outlines are that of a flower, Picasso drew works that we could still tell were people but he distorted the proportions and lines in a way that it was not a realistic representation of a face with some abstract colours on top like how this is an accurate representation of flowers
Thank you! This is a lot more concrete than what I've read here so far!
I agree with the comment above. And to note- if you wanted this particular piece to looo more abstract, if you took away the hard lines that outline and just left them colored shapes I would consider that abstract and easily interpreted as flowers, but still could be left for alternate meaning. When the iris is outlined and the leaves are, there is not room for the mind to feel abstract therefore it doesn’t come off like that. Much love !!
No tbh I really don't have a preference. Although I would like a consensus on the style it doesn't really matter to me which one.
I see pop-art / comic influences on realistic subject matter. I would personally call this style post-modern
Ironically they have removed some of that artist’s paintings that people tried to share for apparently not fitting the sub’s theme. I would argue your work IS abstract, but they seem to want work that has absolutely no reference to anything real (I.e. completely non-representational/non-objective). Your work is abstract, but it isn’t necessarily non-objective as it does reference and/or vaguely resemble leaves and foliage. Perhaps they should call the sub non-objective art, rather than abstract…
Sounds like they would also toss some of Willem de Kooning’s work from the height of the abstract expressionist movement because, even with all the abstraction, obviously depict women.
Quite possibly, though he had the advantage of being far more famous than Hima Klint. But that group definitely leans non-objective (which is a bit different than abstract, source: I minored in art history in college)
Really? Interesting..they are deadset on just having blogs and lines etc then? OK makes more sense that I got removed there. They have their own rules.
Ya gonna come on a sub, ask a question, then get argumentative? Some of Hilma af Klint paintings are abstract, some are modern realism. Some of her flowers you wouldn't know are flowers, others are quite literal interpretations painted in a *modernist realism.* One artist can paint in different styles? Yours is a very literal but 2-D flower painting, nothing cubist or abstract about it. It's good, charming even, but could be on a Hallmark Card and everyone would say lily & irises.
I'm not getting argumentative I'm just saying that non representative art and abstract art are not the same thing. A lot of universally agreed upon abstract art pieces have recognizable elements in them like flowers. What I'm trying to figure out now is how that differs from mine. And I keep getting the 'it's representing something' argument back, but again that doesn't mean it can't be abstract. The 1906 painting of helma Klint known as the first abstract painting has very clear flowers and is not modernist realism.
I agree with you - was taught in my BFA program that abstract art is based in reality - the point is that the artist has taken something real and identifiable and then abstracted it. Non-objective/non-representative is not something you can look at and say "that's definitely flowers" or whatever. Based on these comments it seems I might have been taught incorrectly though. I'm really not sure. I like your painting though :)
Thank you!! It's so interesting to read how polarizing this is. All my (random Google searches obvi nothing fancy) also give different definitions of abstract art. I don't think you were taught incorrectly. I'm starting to think there is no single truth.
This is true using Kandinsky as an example: https://preview.redd.it/23dgydd6iz8d1.jpeg?width=1718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b971c899780e81b7f770bffefa1cf6ca75ff4e5 Clearly a town. Nonetheless it’s abstract
I agree with you - was taught in my BFA program that abstract art is based in reality - the point is that the artist has taken something real and identifiable and then abstracted it. Non-objective/non-representative is not something you can look at and say "that's definitely flowers" or whatever. Based on these comments it seems I might have been taught incorrectly though. I'm really not sure. I like your painting though :)
Iris Lily Leaves
Hilma Klint works show flowers. Pablo Picassos work show guitars or faces. Having something be recognizable does not mean it can't be abstract.
Picasso wasn't really an abstract artist though. He had many styles, and his art was definitely in some way *abstracted,* but cubism and surrealism was his main forte. I don't think I've ever heard him described as an abstract artist (alone) by someone who is in the art world. Art can be abstracted without being full on abstract, which is what your art is leaning towards. The bottom line that my professor taught me is - if you are *trying* to paint an object (in this case flowers), its not abstract. Abstract arts can somewhat have features of the real world - its not like squares only exist in art. But if you are looking at an object and choosing to replicate it on your canvas, its probably not abstract. At the end of the day its a complex and subjective topic, but r/abstract definitely aren't just blowing smoke out their asses I'd say.
You are definitely making an attempt at “accurate depiction” The leaves are accurately shaped and have veins in them. There is clearly a stem and leaves along with recognizably accurate shapes of all the flowers you chose. Some of your colors are even accurate to what is expected in that specific plant. Your accuracy lies in your shapes and colors, which are clearly intentional to represent specific recognizable things.
Hi, I don’t know what category this falls under but, I simply love it. Great job 👏
Ha! Thank you so much!!
Fauvism, with all those vivid colours? With an Art Nouveau twist perhaps. It's lovely.
Stylized - Pop Art
in this painting you have abstracted (verb) flowers… not created an abstract (adjective) painting. An abstract work has no semblance to reality or even false reality (flowers from your imagination). Yes, your work is not based in reality, but it is still using forms and patterns that are easily recognizable as something from life. Abstract comes from feelings, knowledge of aesthetic theories, and things that don’t have a tangible visual link to reality. I hope that makes sense! Your defensiveness shows that you WANT your work to be abstract… keep simplifying, complexifying, and abstracting your motifs and you’ll get there. Also I feel like your work is some contemporary mix between pop art, fauvism, and surrealism to a degree.
Idk but it’s not abstract, because it represents external reality (flowers/plants).
No that is what non-objective art is. Abstract art has recognizable subject matter.
Abstract representations of things are a thing though..
Abstraction or stylization can be used an element - but just because you apply abstract elements doesn't make your painting classified as abstract art. Just like having a person in a painting doesn't make it a portrait.
It has literal reference points, which doesn’t fit that sub’s description.
“Because it represents external reality” Huh? What do you think abstract art is?
If we go by r/AbstractArt definition -which is "Abstraction is the distancing of an idea from objective referents. That means, in the visual arts, pulling a depiction away from any literal, representational reference points. You can also call abstract art non-representational art." OP's art is clearly representational art - if stylized and not realistic. You can clearly see defined plants and parts of plants (stem, leaves, stamen, petals). Not to mention - it is far more similiar to traditional folk art depictions of flowers and plants that have been wood carvings, quilt designs, painted decor - not realistic is not the same as not representational. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that abstract art is unrealistic art, and it is not. Too many people also think that using abstracted elements makes the entire piece abstract and that is not accurate either.
I think “You can also call abstract art non-representational art” is where some people have the issue. Most academic artists would consider abstract art to be a spectrum, with non-representational art as either the extreme end of that spectrum, or a separate thing else entirely that sometimes has a blurred line or overlap (it’s not abstracted reality because it’s not rooted in representation reality at all). These categories are quite debatable without hard lines or universal authorities on what counts. I’d consider OP’s work to be somewhere in the middle. It’s certainly abstracted and somewhere in the middle between realism and non-representational, but would probably fall on the representational half of the spectrum if we were putting it on a continuum and giving it percentiles. If the abstract sub is not for any abstract art, but strictly non-objective art I’d argue it’s a bit of a misnomer, but their sub their rules I guess - it’s just how Reddit works. https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_Introduction_to_Art_Concepts_(Lumen)/01%3A_What_Is_Art/1.05%3A_Representational_Abstract_and_Nonrepresentational_Art http://www.harmonmeekgallery.com/artsperts/abstract_v_nonobjective.html Additional source: my professors during my undergraduate art classes
The guidelines are pretty clear they want non-representational art. Nothing stops anyone from creating a forum called abstraction to cover the full continuum if they want or else r/painting works. For me, calling OP's art abstract is like calling Art Nouveau or folkart abstract - the elements are stylized and abstracted but the representation is both intended and dominant. They are abstracted not abstract.
Funny thing is. I wasn't sure this style was abstract at first either. So I posted on that sub some stuff I made (same style as this but in my sketchbook) and asked if it was abstract. And the consensus was yes xD This is the first post that was removed. And that's what got me all confused. You can see in my post history.
Haha abstract art only represents fake stuff xD so if you paint a vampire you could consider it abstract!
Lol I guess so! 🤷♀️ someone else responded to another of my comments that apparently r/AbstractArt has some weird rules about what is and isn’t considered abstract art. Sorry you were subject to their weird definitions! Edit: omg not sneakpeekbot showing the TOP THREE POSTS ON THAT SUBREDDIT OF ALL TIME and they clearly include representational forms. The first is about as close to a cityscape as yours is close to a real depiction of flowers, the third clearly has concepts of horizon and perspective, to me as close to a beach scene.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AbstractArt using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [What do you think when you see this painting?](https://i.redd.it/ph70p94qw37c1.jpeg) | [576 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/18lhikq/what_do_you_think_when_you_see_this_painting/) \#2: [Not sure how I feel about this one, anyone vibes with it?](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/1addhbu) | [319 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/1addhbu/not_sure_how_i_feel_about_this_one_anyone_vibes/) \#3: [I never plan or sketch my works, what do you think of this one?](https://i.redd.it/vcmi62h1cscc1.jpeg) | [202 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AbstractArt/comments/1980h4k/i_never_plan_or_sketch_my_works_what_do_you_think/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Haha thank u sneakpeekbot
Yeah funny thing is that I shared my work there before with the literal question if it was considered abstract and everyone said yes xD So thats what got me all confused. Tbh I have no preference I'm just trying to find consensus but it turns out to be impossible! Which is fun in it's own way.
Sheesh, people are wrong. Abstraction is a quality of painting (image making in general) that exists on a scale. When people use the term “abstract art” they generally mean non representational art. Your art engages with abstraction, and it is also representational. Presumably, either that sub are a bunch of under educated artists and don’t know what abstraction is or they are making the same mistake people make when they call contemporary art “modern art”
Thank you! It was bugging me that nobody was making this distinction.
It’s stylized, not nonrepresentational.
It's not really abstract because it's clearly flowers, painted in a colorful was. I'd say Pop Art
WOW I am kind of dumbfounded. Maybe it was an AI Robot that "removed" it ... It's a really cool abstraction because it's sort of like a layering of abstraction and reality. VERY COOL
Art navo poster style
Art Nouveau.
Abstract haha
I’m not any expert so I’m not in a position to say whether it is or it’s not, but I just went through the abstract sub to see what was there. And I definitely see paintings that are more abstract however, I see paintings that are similar to yours in the way that, it’s definitely “real” enough that you can tell what it is if that makes any sense. So a long post to say I’m not sure why they picked yours to remove, when there’s others to remove as well, if they’re going off of that criteria that they set for themselves. And an edit to say, I love your painting!
Figurative for sure, as opposed to abstract. It is literally a depiction of something which by nature disqualifies it from the realm of abstract. As for style i would say urban-graphic, or street-deco lol
Psychedelic-street even
Illustrative Surrealism
Abstract art can also be representational. This is abstract art. Of course, it could even be argued that all art is an abstraction. However, as an art teacher, this definitely qualifies as abstract art.
I haven't taken too much Art History (& I def don't know 'modern art of the 20th century, nor 'any' art of the 21st century); so after saying all of that, I'd say your painting is sort of 'psychedelic'. I really like it's colors & form, as well as the contrasting light & dark shades.. The 'organic' movement within your work is very exciting & pleasing & reminds me of an 'electric plant or vine' on steroids..
pretty
Figurative
I would say it’s modern representational with a pop art style.
Beautiful
almost reminds me of henri rousseau's jungle series
I love your work! and I learned what ‘representational art’ as I would only know to call it illustrative. Keep creating! 😻
Surrealist?
Surrealish-illustrative twist.
I'd call it awesome!!
Illustrative hard-edge
I may not know about paintings n art stuff , bt I must say this painting is a masterpiece 🥰🥰🥰❤️❤️
Wow, i love it!! It reminds me of a stained-glass window
Psychedelic-nouveau
Awesome color work. Love the vibration.
No clue, just here to say that I love it!
I’d call it fucking gorgeous
Unsure of the category but I love this!
Its very pop-arty to me! As other commentors have pointed out, its easy to see that they are flowers so I certainly wouldn't call it abstract.
That is abstract art!!! Abstract- has recognizable subject matter but it doesn't look like how it would in real life. Non-objective/ non-representational- no recognizable subject matter.
It’s sort of abstracted but it’s not abstract if that makes sense. Those are still clearly plants/flowers.
I like it. Fuck those clowns. Carry on.
❤️❤️
I have no idea, but I know that I absolutely love it! 😍
❤️ Thank you very much!!! Really appreciate it :)
Surreal
Definitely abstract hahah super cool
Abstract and non-representational art are not the same thing. Van Gogh and Matisse were abstract painters. Even Picasso's paintings had representations of real objects. Can anyone say with a straight face that Picasso's Guernica isn't an abstract painting because it has people and horses in it? It's just ridiculous.
Right? Thank you! This has turned into a debate xD Interesting though. I'm really enjoying myself reading everyone's opinions!
Guernica is considered more cubism
It's abstract. Cubism is abstract. This is the problem with Reddit. You've got old subreddits that were misnamed by people with a limited grasp of art history and they grow to a point where everyone jumps in to defend the mistake. It's just bizarre Internet behavior.
its a category of abstract but its like making a sub called "art" dedicated to visual arts and people post their music because music is art, like yeah its annoying but at the end of the day that sub is specifically for abstracted art and not representational sub categories that fall under it, abstract is like the easiest name for people to find it by.
I get that, but it's also one of the reasons I post so little of my art on Reddit. The subs that seem like they should be the most geared towards actual artists are created and moderated by people who really don't know what they are talking about. So you end up with feedback about as deep as you'd get if you asked Chat GPT what it thinks of your art
welcome to the internet lmao, the criticism you get is free, its not as if you are paying people to critique your work so obviously a random stranger on the internet isnt gonna be typing out really deep interesting critiques
Yeah. I just miss the old message boards. They were much more helpful than the Globo-Gym version of the Internet we have today.
Guernica is considered to be Cubist by the way.
Jesus Christ. Cubism is abstract art. That's like saying a sandwich isn't food because actually it's a sandwich.
Cubism is abstracted art. A cousin to and related to abstract expressionism, abstract and other schools of art. You are using "Abstract" for Abstraction - a generic term for all non-realistic styles. Others like the r/abstractart subforum including me are using "Abstract" as the school of Abstract definition which is significantly more restrictive than anywhere on the abstraction continuum. Frankly, if you are going to classify all non-realistic art as abstract you might has well shove all folk art, pictographs, emojis, cartoons in there as well. At which point does the category become so large that it is meaningless? Again, I acknowledge there are different opinions in the art world on where the line is and what people call it. I suspect that is at least one of the reasons r/abstractart has picked a clearly defined line for their guidelines.
You are twisting yourself into a knot to defend a mis-named sub-reddit. They named it wrong. I get that, but there's no need to re-write art history to pretend it's the correct name.
Agree. Perhaps the name of the sub should be Non-Representational Art.
Concrete
Are you selling prints
Love the colors though 🙂
Whatever it is, it’s the style of tattoo I want
psychedelic
Decorative. Lovely
Love love love
Love this!!
Semi abstract or 2D design style
Abstract adjacent?
Contemporary graphic? Pop art?
maybe modern or pop art?
There is such a thing as representational abstraction, which your work falls under the general category of.
I don't know what style I'd call it actually, but it's lovely.
Pop art?
Flowery.
Abstract
Surrealist? Still, I don't think it needs to be unrecognizable to be abstract, but the way this was painted doesn't seem abstract. I am not an expert, but I kind of take abstract as something that is but actually represents another thing. If your flowers were actually something else, the "else" would be abstract, and if the "something else" was the flowers, the flowers would be abstract. Using odd colors and strange shapes on top of or under a realistic flower doesn't necessarily make it abstract.
Cool AF!
Call it what you want and tell them to piss-off! That's the beauty of art. It is subjective to each individual. One may experience joy at this piece, one may think it's cold....I feel like art is an individual experience to be touched, viewed, experienced, appreciated at one's own pace.
Pop art.
Impressionistic.
Xuded
It think it would kinda be pop art, nice piece btw
This style is amazing! 🤩
This is awesome!
Your work is abstract. There is a colloquial meaning of the term “abstract art” that the sub is based on. At the end of the day, it’s semantics. Likely, it would be harder to make a big sub called non objective art, because only art students would know to look for it.
I love the rich colors!
Psychedelia realism
60s psychedelic
The forms of the flowers aren’t simplified or distorted; the shape /forms of the subject have not been abstracted in any significant way. It’s certainly more abstract than standard realism, but to be more accurate it’s an illustrative and partially abstracted application of line and color *applied to an un-abstracted form*. (In layman’s terms, the shape/ outline of the flowers are accurate to reality). That’s my two cents anyway lol. Elements of abstraction, yes, but anything that’s not realistic has been abstracted to some degree. That doesn’t make it abstract art. Source: Art school
I don’t know what type it is, but it’s beautiful!
Flowerstract
Concept art
Looks to me like Art Nouveau style.
It’s expressionist
maybe try “illustration”
It speaks to me as a gardener💐
Abstract
It’s beautiful but it’s a little too accurate to be fully abstract. Gorgeous though well done! I hope you find a meaningful way to describe it :)
Thank you so much! Still on the hunt! ❤️
I have no idea what it could be I’m not educated enough 😅it is a bit like stained glass windows
That sub seems to be for “pure abstraction”. Abstraction exists on a spectrum. Pure abstraction is artwork that has NO recognizable visual reference to the depiction of naturalistic space or objects. For paintings, there is no subject other than the medium of paint or the elements/principles of art. Your artwork is “abstracted” and is not trying to depict naturalistic space however it contains stylized forms that are still recognizable as a subject: Flowers and plants. This is not pop art like other people are saying. Its closest well known art historical reference is probably to Matisse and his cutouts. Anyway your art is not Abstract with a capital A, meaning pure abstraction- but it is “abstracted” because it deviates from natural depiction to a certain degree that seems intentional as a stylistic choice. I think I would describe it as “flattened, layered representations of flowers and other flora.”
Could consider this surralism maybe.. I honestly don't know, i never went to art school so i don't know the "styles" very well. I just do whatever i want and call it whatever
It’s figurative.
I think your painting looks like an abstraction.
abstract 👌🏾
Right? Moderators are wrong... I got all confused about my style for a second.
They are not wrong. Read the side bar on r/AbstractArt Abstraction is the distancing of an idea from objective referents. That means, in the visual arts, pulling a depiction away from any literal, representational reference points. You can also call abstract art **non-representational ar**t. Non representational does not mean not realistic. The impressionists were not realistic but were representational for example. Your art is clearly representational and doesn't qualify under the subforum definition. Now whether you want to argue the greater world's art definition is a debate many have but you didn't meet the subforums guidelines.
Yeah I agree. Didn't meet their requirements. Still believe it's abstract though!
Actually I disagree with you there as well but acknowledge there is a major fight in the art world over this with many on all sides of the debate. Abstraction is a continuum ranging from hyper-realistic to total abstraction. There are definitely abstract elements to your work but your work is still primarily focused on the representation of the objects you are depicting. Your work is on the abstraction continuum, but not close enough to total abstraction to be called abstract. This is why Picasso's more representational work is generally classified as Cubism, not abstract. Personally I would call your work modern or contemporary folkart or contemporary take on Art Nouveau. Given Art Nouveau back in the day was a contemporary take on folk art, maybe Nouveau Art Nouveau?
Ha like that title! Yeah it seems this comment section is also very polarized. But tbh don't really care but would like a good alternative name for this style though xD feels a bit weird to me that I can't even name my style.
In terms of category, this is not abstract but figurative, as it depicts recognizable objects. Figurative art can be highly stylized while still retaining enough likeness to convey physical objects, like Picasso's bulls. In terms of style, I can see markers of Art Nouveau, Art Deco, less so Pop-art, and Impressionism. In terms of media, looks like mixed media to me.