Monday, August 17, 2009

Overgrass

Posted by at

8 comments:

  1. Andrei MolotiuAugust 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM

    Wow, that's gorgeous.

    I think I'm going to download it and see what it looks like in greyscale. Maybe moving away from naturalistic colors will enhance its abstractness?

    I'm also reminded of some of the abstract panels that Nick Mullins posted on his blog a few months ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dick WhyteAugust 18, 2009 at 1:44 AM

    This is stunning - and I think that the green colour is essential to it. It is an action of abstraction rather than an 'abstract' (if that makes sense). A great work though. Glad I stopped by ad saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Andrei MolotiuAugust 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM

    yeah, Dick is right, it really has to stay in green--as I said, I found it gorgeous from the get-go, I just wanted to see what it would look like with less naturalistic colors. But it just proved that it's perfect the way it is. And I think the idea of "an action [or maybe 'an act'] of abstraction rather than an 'abstract'" not only makes a lot of sense, but can come in very useful in our discussions here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. nina roosAugust 18, 2009 at 1:13 PM

    Float-hover-fly, I am when I look at this piece. Really beautifull. Yes my head tells me Grass! Hair! How predictable. But I let it pass, return and keep on moving through this work. Wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dick WhyteAugust 18, 2009 at 5:59 PM

    Andrei,

    Yeah - I find the distinction between the 'abstact' and 'abstraction' to be a useful one. One is a noun, providing a category for non-representational images, while the other is an action/act which takes an object from the world and shifts it in terms of perception. This distinction could be used to explain the differences between Malevich (abstract) and Picasso (abstraction) for instance. The 'abstract' is usually more conceptual in nature (about ideas) while 'abstraction' is more about perception as an act.

    All the best,
    Dick

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dick WhyteAugust 19, 2009 at 6:52 AM

    As a side note to what I said about abstract/abstraction: This is a theory I have been working on for a while actually. I still remember the day I started thinking about it, so many years ago in art history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike GetsivAugust 21, 2009 at 12:36 AM

    Thanks Nina! Your work is awesome, by the way. Count me in to buy your book when it's available.

    Thanks Dick! and thanks for bringing some good discussion to this board. I like your view of something being an "action of abstraction". I have an 18-page series I'm working on which might be better described as that than as 'abstract'. I'll probably post some of it in the next month or so - I'm working it all out in blue pencil before I get to finishing the pages. Anyway, I'd like to read more about your theory if you want to post it here or link to your blog.

    Thanks Andrei! You seem familiar to me for some reason. I think maybe I've seen your name somewhere recently?

    ReplyDelete
  8. DrawAugust 21, 2009 at 1:34 AM

    I also really like it as well, its great to see it generating discussion as well.

    ReplyDelete

Please note that anonymous comments will be rejected.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)