Debate: Abstract Art

[Noelia]

I would like to know your opinion about abstract art. I remember this once (among many others with school) when I went with Paul and some friends to this exhibition of Pablo Picasso (I think) and we couldn't help but laugh at such a poor work.

Now I can draw 10 times better than him, and I know more of animal anatomy than he does, or at least I apply my knowledge to my work.

Why would people consider a spot of ink on a piece of fabric "art" while the hard work required to create an animated character (a good one!) is so underestimated?

[johnr]

estoy completamente de acuerdo contigo, en mi vida he entendido porque algunas personas, no, muchas personas valoran tales cosas de 'arte' (entre comillas).

Me acuerdo en unas dibujos, dibujado por un mono o tal, que también se vendió por much dinero.

No es justo!

[Robie]

Noelia, estás hablando del arte como el arte en el museo de bellas artes - las obras de rojo, blanco y negro. Lo más joven de todo? Y el que estaba en las salas climitizadas cuando las obras muy antiguas y famosas estaban en la humedad de las salas sin A/C?

Recuerdas cuanto nos reimos en ese museo? No, tampoco prefiero las obras abstractas.

[Noelia]

Exactamente, de eso hablo!

So if you say these pieces are crap, they laugh at you, they consider you have no culture at all and you become an ignorant. If you try -hopelessly- to explain them why Picasso's dog doesn't look like a dog because it's just a couple of lines trying to imitate the four-legged figure of the dog with the same perfection a 3-year old would draw it, they'd say you're too ignorant to understand "the feelings of the artist at the moment of drawing the dog".

So here's my challenge to Picasso and others: Can they find a good mood to draw a dog that ACTUALLY looks like a dog, respecting animal anatomy? Does picasso know what's the skeleton of a dog like? I bet all I have he doesn't have the faintest idea, while most animators have to study the bones, the muscles, locomotion and behavior of creatures to create whatever animated film you see, even the new one made in the computer.

I really think people are snobbish and those who support abstract art is because they don't care at all about art. To me, it's like seeing an old man adding "2+2=4" while many monkeys applause and support him and the accountants of the world are ignored.

[johnr]

Hay un cuento en ingles llamado 'The Emperor's New clothes', y para mi es algo muy parecido a unos de los dibujos de Pacasso.

deoxy.org/emperors.htm

[chrisbutler]

Well N., I am now totally convinced that there is nothing that we will ever agree on, ever !!!!

All art is absract. It's just a question of how abstract. Even photographs are abstract. None of them reproduces reality perfectly.

A lot of modern art is crap, a lot of old art is crap (see the Pre-Raphaelites if you don’t believe me !) and a lot of animations are crap. However, all of them are, in some sense, trying to choose what parts of reality to show and how to show them .

For me, if you want to see real beauty then throw the whole lot in the bin and go watch something like a kangaroo moving at 30 km per hour over open country at sunset. That is beautiful (if you've never seen a kangaroo move, then you might find that hard to imagine). Whale sharks swimming with no effort at speeds where you can't keep up even for a minute. Albatrosses skimming the ocean. Each is truly beautiful in a very similar way. In a different way watching (if only for 5 minutes) a wild wolf pack on the move is also an experience that no animator will ever capture. I've been truly lucky enough to see them all. No animation, no matter how skillfully done, can ever match that. So if you are just trying to recreate reality then, why bother? Reality will win every time.

The fact is that even animation does not try to capture reality perfectly. For example, in your own animations the eyes of the animals are far larger than reality. You have chosen to show them that that way. It works and there is nothing wrong with it, but it is abstract!

I'm not denying the skill involved in an animation. I could never draw like you, even if you gave me five years to do one picture, but part of that skill is abstraction rather than imitation.

Apart from the aesthetic question, whether you like it or not, some modern art is truly evocative. To take your example of Picasso. His Guernica is iconic in the true sense of that word. When Rice and Powell were giving their news conferences on Iraq at the UN, they had the damned thing covered with a sheet so that it wouldn't be seen in the background on TV. Whatever you think about the aesthetic qualities of the piece, no animation (that I know of - correct me if I am wrong) has ever had the power, 70 years on, to threatened, simply by its existence, the message of the most powerful nation on earth.

Finally, to turn to your specific example. Picasso did a lot of dogs, but I presume you are talking about his drawing of Lump, his daschund (www.globalgallery.com/enlarge/023-31592/). It's a one line drawing (not a couple) and that is part of the point. It's meant to be a nothing, it's not meant to be taken seriously as an aesthetic piece. It’s simply a short love poem from him to a dog that was by his side for a large part of his life.

There is a wonderful photo here (www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DEG791&curImage=3) of Picasso showing Lump the very first painting he ever painted of him. The drawing and the photo always make me smile because they are so human. How you can get angry at that drawing beats the hell out of me (to use a wonderful American expression).

In this case I think the emperor has clothes. They may be very simple. They may not be beautifully made, but they are just a little glimpse of a man and his dog. If you don’t want to see them then that is fine. I really don’t feel snobbish, or like a monkey, just because they make me smile.

[Noelia]

Yes, that's the dog. It was drawn in a napkin when we saw it, I believe.

Now, I won't talk about my art because I'm not even close to the people whose animation work I admire so much, but, keeping that doggy in mind look at these drawings, and forget -just for a second- that you're seeing characters from a children's movie:

1) www.ahiva.info/public/galeria/lion-king-21.gif
2) www.kraftfoods.com/veryfine/images/Spirit-Poster-2.jpg
3) www.fondosescritorio.net/wallpapers/Cine-Y-Television/Tarzan/Tarzan.jpg


1) Ruben Aquino's "Simba": Beside the obvious childish expressions of the lion, which are exagerated for the film, you can't deny the looks and the hard work it took to even imagine this character. Moving it, like a real lion does, that's something else.

2) Jamex Baxter's "Spirit": This is another character from another movie. Pay attention to the muscles drawn in his chest and legs. I can't even draw something like this horse without cheating and looking at the animator notes. He probably spent month studying horse locomotion to find out where were the muscles and how they moved.

3) Glen Keane's "Tarzan": If you see this movie, you'll be amazed. Especially if you make second readings of it. Tarzan is a very complicated character, he was raised by gorilas so not only he had to act and move like one, but also, having learned to walk, hunt and eat like them, he suffered deformations to his body that is now a strange shape inbetween both creatures. If you see him moving, you wouldn't believe it, but, let's stay in the "still" field, to be fair with the fine artists.


I -of course- don't expect a fine artist to be able to create a character for movies. But at least, I expect some respect for talent. How much does Picasso earn for his dog? How much did James Baxter earn for his horse? You knew Piccasso when I named him. Did you know who these animators were before I named them? No, you know Disney and you know Dreamworks, but not the talents behind the pencil.

And I see that stupid dog in a exhibition, people in lines to take pictures of him, and everybody applausing and disguising the "lack of everything" that dog has under the concept "art is artistic and it's not supposed to be understood".

Any fool can draw a dog like that and any fool can grab 3 or 4 different cans of paint and make a big multicolor spot and name it "My good mood" but not anyone can draw horses and lions as good as these ones. Let's not be fooled by a good name given by snobish people...

[chrisbutler]

Puedes me insultar todo lo que quieras. Me llamas “monkey”, “snob”, “pirate” o cualquiera. Pero, no puedes insultar mi amigo (difunto), Lump . No era estúpido.

En nombre de Lump y en su memoria, exijo una disculpa.

[Noelia]

ermmm... am I supposed to know what you're talking about?

[chrisbutler]

Tu dijaste:

And I see that stupid dog in a exhibition, people in lines to take pictures of him, and everybody applausing and disguising the "lack of everything" that dog has under the concept "art is artistic and it's not supposed to be understood".

Oí un pequeno ladrido de ultratumba !

[sendai]

Sí, fuimos a ver una exhibición de Picasso en las Galerias Pacífico. Horrible. Casi todo era garabatos en servilletas y cosas por el estilo. Había tres cuadros que parecían algo más que borradores, de los cuales me gustó uno.

Ahora, hay que reconocer que no consistía en sus mejores obras. Lo que pasa es que Picasso se hizo tan famoso que hasta un dibujo de cuarta en papel higiénico vale más que mi 401k. Seguro que sus mejores cuadros no son porquerías, pero lo que vi acá en Buenos Aires no me causó buena impresión.

El dibujito de Lump no está mal. Es simple y elegante y sin duda evoca un perro. Otra cosa es si vamos a colgarlo en un museo, porque no es nada del otro mundo.

Animation doesn't get much respect in the Western world because historically it has generally been intended for children and teenagers, and frankly much of it is crap. Most adults don't take it seriously. Even Disney puts out a lot of direct-to-video animations that aren't anything special. Of course, the stuff they release in theaters is generally excellent.