I was surprisingly enthralled by this article. Something I've been thinking a lot about recently is why most people can't get into abstract art, or rather what makes the abstract works they like more accessible. My running theory has been that regular people (i.e. those without degrees in fine arts) would be more attracted to works with "prettier" colors and unchallenging compositions, something I haven't dragged anyone to a museum to test yet. The article presented the idea that viewers need something to empathize with in works of art in order to appreciate them, and that since representational art gives them things they have seen or experienced before it is easier to get into than the unfamiliarity of abstraction. That made me think of what abstract artists are popular on a mainstream level and the first that came to mind was Georgia O'Keeffe, and while she wasn't a purely abstract artist by any means, her less than realistic works are appreciated at large because they give the implication of real objects and allow viewers an anchor in the real world.
Comments (2)
I think the article also suggests that an abstract representation leaves more space for the viewer to enter. But, I tend to agree with your view that most people need some kind of realistic anchor. I think the main thrust of the article is mainly referring to simple characters like Mario which have abstract characteristics, rather than abstract art (althought that is mentioned). One reason for the rejection of abstract art is that it doesn't appear to contain much craft - "it's something that anyone could do." But isn't that part of its message?
(feel free to add any additional comments you may have)
Posted by Andy Cox | September 20, 2006 10:23 PM
Posted on September 20, 2006 22:23
I think that a common misconception about abstract art is that anyone can do it. On the surface, yes, everyone can "simulate" the splatter paintings of Jackson Pollack, but I think that what is engaging and interesting, is that personality can still emerge from something that is suppossed to be non-objective. So Jackson Pollacks paintings (to use him as an example) are interesting because that is the way in which he felt he best expressed himself. To relate this to video game avatars, it's not so much the craft that is engaging (e.g. how many polygons are in the character), but the personality of the thing itself. The personality that people can connect to on some unconcious level. Like Mario, for some reason it makes sense to us that an italian plumber in a red jump suit would be fighting turtles and little brown turds with dress shoes. Somehow, we have culturally felt a connection with this charismatic character. This connection hasn't gotten deeper the more rendered he has become. Nintendo 64 mario isn't better loved then 15 pixel Mario. I do agree though, that it helps to have an achor in reality as Andy stated, but the whole point of video games is to exceed reality in some way. At least that is what I think.
Posted by Eric Christiansen | October 30, 2006 10:46 AM
Posted on October 30, 2006 10:46