Here’s how abstract art is fun versus misunderstood and still so thrilling.
An art supply clerk asked me, “What kind of art do you do? And I immediately knew the correct answer. Also the not correct one: “I stitch grids and patterns with heavy doses of dark humor and irony that beckon the viewer to look closer. Then wrap themselves in the comfort of confrontation where the current climate pulls one toward ennui and melancholy.”
Nope, not that one. Instead, I just said, “Abstract.” True and not true.
Here’s how I abstract: By pulling luscious globs of transparent tones of acrylic paint with loyalty cards onto mixed media paper to form multi-colored squares. Those squares form precise grids of color ala Agnes Martin. I then subvert abstraction by overlaying my paint with disturbing image transfers from mid century textbooks. Now and again I stick to strictly abstract by foregoing any transfers in favor of gestural mark making with oil pastels.
Fun versus misunderstood, all the time
And who cares, this is Tucson. Abstract art is fun versus misunderstoodhere. On a regular basis. And it is still so thrilling to make, for me. Marla Olmstead and Julien Delagrange I am not. I’ll explain after a brief bit of background.
Abstract art would at first seem simple, sort of. And there’s no end of opinion about it. The simple: it’s about nothing. The complex: it’s about nothing that’s recognizable as an object in reality. (I just made that up).
The Tate has this to say on the subject: “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.”
The issue with abstract art of course is: if the intention is something other than realism how to know the good from the bad from the ugly. Is it fun versus misunderstood or just plain terrible and what exactly is the “effect” alluded to in Tate’s definition?
Want the abstract art Top of the Pops? Check these: Yves Klein (1928 – 1962), Gerhard Richter (1932 -), Jackson Pollock (1912-1956).
My own most memorable encounter with abstract art was in 1980 when my then wife Janet and I spent our wedding money on a membership to the Walker Art Center. The museum was showing Frank Stella’s Indian Bird series. Knocked me out. Glitterfied french curve collages of color, shape and texture bouncing off the walls with all manner of exuberance. The work was as mesmerizing as it was shocking and fun.
Abstract art so thrilling yet so problematic
Regardless of my own shock and awe introduction to abstract art, there’s a problem. The genre struggles with good and not good; a tin plate target on a wobbly chainlink of a carnival game with a bullseye that appears gauzy and faded as it courses past our eyes.
Enter today’s experts: the cast of “My Kid Could Paint That” from 2007 and Julien Delagrange, director of Contemporary Art Issue (CAI)
At four years old in 2004 and living in upstate New York Marla Olmstead would have been hard pressed to define “abstract" but her paintings sold for five figures and up. She’s the star of “My Kid Could Paint That” which premiered in 2007. After some initial exposure in a Binghamton, NY coffee shop Marla was discovered by a local gallery owner and eventually showed her work in NYC. We’ll come back to Ms. Olmstead shortly.
Julien Delagrange, director, Contemporary Art Issue (CAI) also weighed in on abstract art via his YouTube channel. Mr. Delagrange is convinced many of us are failing at abstract art. He claims to have the number one reason why our abstract paintings fail. Hmmmmm. Watching Delagrange’s video I felt like I’d fallen into a “You’re Doing It Wrong” wormhole. Simple methods I’ve always enjoyed now turn out to be, “Wrong, wrong,wrong.” Dang.
After watching and rewatching Delagrange’s video I could summarize his whole recipe for better abstract art: Use uncommon materials in uncommon ways and voilà, from amateur to professional artist in the shake of a stick dipped in house paint.
Delagrange says, “We’re (he and his adorable golden retriever co-star) going to explain why some pictures make it (voiceover with Gerhad Richter on the screen) into art galleries and museums and become renowned abstract painters and others are seen as hobby painters.”
Given his premise, it's curious that Delagrange lands his solution/salvation to the far south of quality--he ultimately recommends shopping at hardware stores for art supplies rather than at art supply stores. Why not recommend exquisite good archival supplies, the very high end, bespoke if you will of paints and brushes?
Delagarange’s comments led me to my own impostor syndrome and then back to the greatest impostor of them all (according to some) - Marla Olmstead and her very conflicted parents, Mark and Laura. If the proof of abstract art success is selling your work to a collector for $20,000 Marla made it. Does it always take a critic to declare success?
What is abstract art and why does anyone care? Well No. 1--its so fun.
Abstract art is so thrilling. What could be better than slinging, smearing, brushing and mashing paint into canvas with a child’s eye view of good? Abstract art: Fun versus misunderstood--of course it is.
Four- year-old Marla Olmstead, unlike Delagrange, is clueless, guileless and utterly at ease as we watch her pushing paint in her underwear.
Marla may or may not be a child prodigy, see the movie to hear what the critics say. Her paintings sold for figures and by six she was showing at a gallery in NYC. Fun for her was a canvas with many tubes of paint, big brushes and time to play with them. She’s unaware of the adults in the hovering background--parents, gallery owner, critics and filmmaker all variously aggrieved, misunderstood, manipulative, fretful and opportunistic. It’s a wonder the kid could manage to do a canvas justice.
(Dear Mr. Delagrange you’ll note in the movie Marla prefers Liquitex Basics straight from the tube)
Marla’s work represents the golden ticket - colorful, abstract, fun and sought after by collectors. How her work got there is a bit of a mystery. Is her childhood success due mostly to promotion, exposure and luck or are we witnessing exceptional talent bequeathed to an urchin in chonies?
Michael Kimmelman, art critic for the New York Times wrote this in 2004 about Marla’s work and the question of abstract art, fun versus misunderstood: “Its ambiguity is a rich subject for heady painters today like Gerhard Richter, who switch-hits between realism and abstraction, in the process asking whether abstractions say anything at all. A 4-year-old's costly daubings suggest that they do. They tell us innocence is priceless.”
Maybe its not about fun versus misunderstood art
Bianca Bosker in her book “Get the Picture” argues for context - art has value due in large measure due to context that surrounds the artist themselves. And in this case context means which people have some association with the artist. Collectors, critics, intimate partners, people the artists just hangs out with, gallerists and those who inspired the artist. When you apply the context rubric a four-year-old would be at a bit of a disadvantage. But what about that money?
I’ve frequently sought advice and feedback from gallerists and noteworthy painters about my own work. Their first question is, “Have you sold anything?” I sheepishly admit there’s been little in the way of sales. Is that value? Is that failure? Still, the work is thrilling, to do, always.
Fun versus misunderstood? Al Capp, who penned the satirical comic Li'l Abner for funny pages gets the last word: “Abstract art: a product of the untalented sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered.”
You decide and please let me know below
