> Daceballos writes:
> > They just don't get Kandinsky or Diebenkorn, much less the
> > art shown at the recent Brooklyn Museum "Sensations" show
> > Madonna.
> I have been teaching high school for about 29 years and I have
> included nonobjective art and abstractions to my students. I
will agree that
> they resist it at first because they don't know how to look at
> evaluate it's worth.
Kandinsky, it is said, was turned on to the abstract when he was
entranced by what he saw when encountered one of his own
paintings in his studio leaned against a wall and not
This rings true for me too. In making realistic art I frequently
get caught up in the interesting juxtaposition between shape and
color whether in the scene I am attempting to reproduce or in a
small section of a painting or drawing. Like Kandinsky I have
also encountered images that I did not immediately recognize but
enjoyed simply for the pattern they presented.
It might be useful to have students go back through their
portfolios to find an interesting little area in a work which
they could take and enlarge; Or maybe find a similarly
interesting square inch in a magazine photograph or advertisement
to enlarge and elaborate on.
FWIW not all abstract - non-representational art is intellectual,
meaningful, or even intended for analytical experience. Once
medieval Monks approached the visage of flowers and herbs to
discover their supposedly inherent religious message in the same
scholastic way that contemporary art critics manage to
analytically uncover intellectual meaning and entertainment.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 08:20:16 PDT