I know that abstract or abstracted painting has several hundred (thousand, hundreds of thousands) books dedicated to deciphering its mysterious and alluring qualities, but how hard is it really?
Any painter, with a modicum of talent, an understanding of color and composition, and some knowledge about the technicalities of painting, can produce an abstract work. And sell it too. There, I've said the sacrilegious words.
There was recently a conundrum over a painting that a lady truck driver bought at a yard sale, which turned out to be a Pollock, based on finger prints and other details. No-one from the art world accepted that verdict, and the woman has been on several talk shows to voice her plight. Because of their discredit, she cannot sell the work. The art world, as I've shown in a previous post, is all about the in-group, selling the in-work.
But, this begs a further question. If the art world cannot recognize a Pollock just by looking at it, what is there about a Pollock to recognize? A bunch of paint blots?
It is the same with a Rothko. One artist once asked me - "How does he do it?" "What?" I asked. "Make those incandescent layers?" Now, I don't find Rothko particularly stimulating nor transcendent. But, like any other artist, he knew very well how to manipulate paint, and preferred to do just that rather than make any real paintings.
It is even easy to do with photoshop, as I demonstrated with this photograph
on my post on the California wildfires. Now, if I were with the "in" crowd, and had a few hundred such experiments to show that I'm really serious about this all, and went to an art school somewhere in London preferably, I might have a shot at becoming a millionaire.
The sad part is that the public, and the wealthy plebians who've spent billions on useless pieces, will one day realize is that this was all a hoax.
How much better to be honest with one's self, and do service to the tradition and excellence of drawing and painting, rather than cop out with scribbles and blotches which managed to end up off the drawing board?
Rothko committed suicide, and Pollock ended up in a drink-induced car accident. I would think even Pollock's method was a slow cruise towards his demise.
Art is important. It is important still to make it real.