|
|
Post by art4net on Dec 22, 2001 14:32:01 GMT -5
Is Abstract Expressionism continuing to influence contemporary art???
Which nowadays painters are following in the footsteps of Pollock, de Kooning & Rothko ...
|
|
|
|
Post by art4net on Dec 26, 2001 0:19:06 GMT -5
Alice Teichert embraces the artistic values of simplicity, immediacy and freedom, but her deceptively simple paintings have complex and disparate origins that are not always readily apparent. Throughout her career she has worked to integrate the various experiences, those accumulated backgrounds, that have shaped her as an artist. Born in Paris in 1959, Teichert was raised in Brussels, where the first influence on her art came from her mother, a pianist, who taught her to play that instrument and to read music. Music became "an obsession," as that most abstract of art forms, with a notation that was both suggestive and visually engaging. To Teichert, the "fluidity" of music remains a value to which painting can still aspire. Teichert transferred from the internationally oriented European School in Brussels to a high school with an intensive art programme and then went on to the Ecole Régionale des Beaux-Arts of Valence in France, where Pierre Soulages was a visiting artist and she made contact with critic Dominique Fourcade. Teichert was influenced by the so-called gesture painters, such as Henri Michaux, who to her exemplified painting and drawing as "visual forms of poetry." As a multi-lingual person fluent in French, German and English, Teichert was drawn to the study of language, as such, and she was soon reading French theorists: Barthes, Derrida, Saussure, and others favoured by the Post-Modernist movement. She observes that they "made me see the links between all languages spoken and written, and the (m)other tongue we all share,and they encouraged her also to think of painting in terms of "language" and "communication." A chief motive for moving to the "new world" of North America had been Teichert's admiration for its abstract art. She was greatly stimulated by JACKSON POLLOCK's retrospective at the Centre Georges Pompidou in 1982, and she was drawn to ROTHKO and HOFMANN, FRANKENTHALER and BUSH, as antidotes to her "well-encrusted" background with its "very classic" European training. Teichert shared with these Modernist masters a concern with the medium as a vital stimulus to creativity, and an intense interest in reconsidering the very nature of the basic vocabulary of visual art. Thus her paintings encompass a wide range of linear properties: there is gouged line, strokes of oil crayon, and what I can only call small chromatic caresses. Like her chosen artistic forebears, she foregrounds colour, which to Teichert is a "universal language." But technique, as such, is not her concern, and she rejects any tendency to value it for its own sake. Teichert has especially appreciated Jack Bush's intuitive approach to the creative process: "The picture has to tell me" what to do," she says. Like Bush, as exemplified by his celebrated comment, "Well now, Mr. Yellow, what would you like next door?", she starts with a colour she would like to work with, and then brings in another that she intuits should go with it. Bush's example thus provided one avenue for Teichert's "transfer" from the writing world to the painting world. For her, poetry and painting are like her spoken languages: she can choose which one to communicate with at any particular moment. By 1992 this "transfer" was largely complete, and she had the look of a highly accomplished Modernist painter, working in an allover vein (e.g., Organ Day) that was quite free from any literary concerns and in fact belied the complexity of her formative experiences -- the tension between high Modernism's abhorrence of the literary and Teichert's fascination with it. Teichert's art is neither as detached nor as free from function as high Modernism has been thought to demand. She has observed that painting "allows me to collect myself... stay rooted." To her,"Painting is a fluid language that moves our souls," and abstraction, especially, is "a spiritual experience." Author: Ken Carpenter is Chairman of Visual Arts @ York University in Toronto. He is a member of the Canadian Branch of the International Association of Art Critics (AICA). Find her artwork at : www.aliceteichert.com |
|
|
|
Post by hitoast on Jan 30, 2002 7:27:00 GMT -5
Who follows in the footsteps of pollock, de kooning and franz kline?? There are examples of abstract expressionism in the detail of impressionism, in the clouds and trees of the renaissance masters, dare I go back to the cave paintings of southern France? When a term was "coined" in the mid-20th century abstract expressionism, it was not so much a discovery of a new realm of art but rather the awakening to the craft of painting as solely emotional if not spiritual communication. The modern giants of abstract expressionism were successful not because of their shock value, but more appropriately because of their voices which sang in a clarion of freedom, peace, and connection with the world - for those who would listen. Was it coincidence that the art form was the first truly American movement to gain world recognition ? during the cold war? Nowadays a painter is termed abstract expressionist if there is a non-objective splashing of paint, a random brushstroke, or composition of color placement that has an appearance of intellect due to its similarity to the masters, but more often the "contemporary" abstract expressionists message is so void of the depth that the masters had that the only message they convey is a modern world void of passion, understanding, the result of commercialization bombardment, and the popularization of sterility for the sake of acceptance (where the lifeless dollar has as much personality). Now, would it be possible to embrace commercialization to such an extent that one inadvertently arrives at the core of humanity? well there would be cases for Warhol, Haring, and others- but that would change the subject from abstract expressionism. Is there a case or situation where one could say that there is no such thing as commercialization, fake-ness or shallowness? That an artists creation is always his/her intended presentation to society? Whether it be an imitation of an others work or the intentional promotion of the ideal popular mild standard? (not to be confused with "American standard"  Doesn't Nietzsche say that we all confront at the same reality sooner or later? - or could the standard reality be changing along with the environment to be that of a comic book simple harshness? Certainly, reality goes through changes along with attempts at revealing reality through artwork. So, the question becomes what are the timeless standards by which human beings live, and can they be expressed properly through any art form? - or even should they be expressed properly through arts? For example the secessionist movement Klimt was part of declared that the artist was to be considered a social leader in the areas of truth and beauty. Is that delivering us closer to the old question "what is art in the first place?". Doesn't abstract expressionism tackle this issue better than any other genre because of its goal as a universal consciousness? If one is going to make art, why do anything other than abstract expressionistic pieces? I think a better question is why doesn't every painter follow in the footsteps of Pollock, deKooning, etc. Robert Zawadzkas welcomes other contemporary abstract expressionist painters to contact him for inclusion and recognition in the Numinist movement. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorAmouse on Feb 9, 2002 17:14:34 GMT -5
The real question is:
Is there any worth in re-hashing Abstract Expressionism when it has largely been dead (figuratively speaking) since the advent of Pop (Johns and Rauschenberg) and Minimalism (Stella) and the decline of the influence of Clement Greenberg?
|
|
|
|
Post by ahajnal on Mar 21, 2002 11:02:18 GMT -5
Hi all, I am an abstract painter, just updated my website. Check it out at www.kostyalandrea.compeace, Andrea |
|
|
|
Post by ahajnal on Mar 22, 2002 13:06:12 GMT -5
Dear all! Since I posted my website update, I received numerous hits and I want to thank all of you for taking the time to look at my paintings. I do not have representation in galleries, because I moved to USA only a few months ago with my husband. If someone can recommend ways to start looking for exhibition possibilities, I would appreciate it. wish you all the best, Andrea Kostyal www.kostyalandrea.com |
|
Doesn't Nietzsche say that we all confront at the same reality sooner or later? - or could the standard reality be changing along with the environment to be that of a comic book simple harshness? Certainly, reality goes through changes along with attempts at revealing reality through artwork. So, the question becomes what are the timeless standards by which human beings live, and can they be expressed properly through any art form? - or even should they be expressed properly through arts? For example the secessionist movement Klimt was part of declared that the artist was to be considered a social leader in the areas of truth and beauty. Is that delivering us closer to the old question "what is art in the first place?". Doesn't abstract expressionism tackle this issue better than any other genre because of its goal as a universal consciousness? If one is going to make art, why do anything other than abstract expressionistic pieces? I think a better question is why doesn't every painter follow in the footsteps of Pollock, deKooning, etc.