Webster defines abstract as: a.considered apart from a certain instance, b.expressing a quality apart from the object or c. having only intrinsic form with little or no pictorial representation. Put simply; taking an object and concentrating on its core fundamentalness. All three definitions quickly fit abstract painting in showing, telling, drawing and painting ab muscles essence of the object without actually depicting the object itself.

So how exactly does an abstract painter arrive at an abstract design? Many stated that they started with a representational motif, that the motif was something readily identifiable. They dissected the motif so to speak, searching for the bare bones, the very essence of the object. They expressed this essence with colorful shapes, some beautiful, some drab, and some just plain ugly.

In any type of painting the artist is making a statement. famous abstract artists It's easy to state pretty pink flowers in a representational painting. What the abstract artist has to say should be said with his/her simple means; brush marks, color and interesting shapes. Also, since color is arbitrary, color is at the artist's whim, and may or might not be pretty and has nothing to do with the painting's success.

To create a meaningful statement without a recognizable subject is daunting. It's not a matter of simply looking and drawing. He or she must use almost all their wiles to engage us in dialog making use of their art, being limited, or we ought to say, unlimited, with unrecognizable shapes and unrelated (to the object) color. The artist must interest and talk to the viewer through form and color.

A poor, wishy washy, pretty pink flower painting says, "Weak, wishy washy pretty pink flowers!" Bright, bold colors, without form and substance in a abstract painting says, "No form and no substance!" Neither painting is successful.

So..... here we stand before the artwork, having no knowledge of abstract art, its purpose and intention. We wish to respond but we are with no clue. So, we hesitate before the art work, we don't know very well what to say, we don't answer the colour or design, so, we leave saying, or at the very least thinking, "That artist must certanly be nuts!" And wondering what the painting was all about. The thing that was its purpose? Was it good art or not?

There are several people that are of the opinion that a painting should be representational to be good art. And if they cannot see every hair on the head and every leaf on the tree, then your art isn't good. That simply is not true. You could choose the see every hair but that is not necessarily a sign of good art.

What guidelines do we've in judging abstract paintings merits? The guidelines that representational painters must follow are exactly the same for the abstract painter. The task should have readable values, color harmony and dominance, repetition with variety in shapes, colors and lines, all that relates to good art must also be in abstract art.

An accumulation of wild colors and shapes does not always total up to good art in abstraction or representational art. A good abstract can be more challenging to pull off than representational art because the artist is counting on his imagination and intuition to make something meaningful and of value. (not necessarily monetary value)

In attempting to understand abstract (non-representational) art, approach it with the theory at heart to simply appreciate what's before you. Sometimes the title will give us a hint in regards to what the painting is about. That helps. Then look and pay attention to how it affects you.

Does the colour speak for you? Are you currently lifted up or cast down by along with? You may have some a reaction to a piece of art work, it will move you in some way, perhaps not much, perhaps a great deal. Identify what it is. Good art, whether abstract or representational, sets a mood, tells a tale, however subtle, intrigues and interests the viewer, and therefore, each painting must certanly be appreciated alone merits.