SPARCE OR CROWDED?
Well aware that this is an over-simplistic indulgence. It is possible to fit an artist/painter into one of two categories:
The two categories are –
And the crowded.
Regardless of their manifesto or school of thought. Regardless of their place on the scale from Photo-realism to abstraction.
Artist’s images are full to capacity and overflowing, or sparse, usually clean and minimal in content.
Have I traced this tendency to be true? Some artists will add and add and add to the image birthed by their brush. Others will study and study and study (studiously consider I mean), before placing any marks at all.
Some must invent. Some must record. The inventors must keep moving the brush and responding to what they have already produced – i.e. the marks they have already made.
The recorders must try each time they start a piece of work – to render it more accurately, ‘realistically’, naturalistically, and so on, – than last time.
Whatever (as they say) floats your boat.
It might be right to say that the ‘man in the street’ normally favours something he doesn’t have to think about – something that is plain to be seen – something that ‘reproduces’ reality.
But of course a painting or photograph can’t reproduce reality. It only imitates it. Three dimensionality (the actual world), will never become two dimensional, (the world of the flat surface).
This is a well worn debate.
The ‘non arty’ person (whatever that means?) – favours the skill demonstrated in the imitational reproducing of reality – this person favours the recorder-type artist. Whilst usually dismissing the imaginative one – usually with the words ‘I don’t understand this…’
But of course no one can give the exact ‘numbers’ – the percentage preferences of taste in art appreciation, present in the public’s eye.
As there may well be as many folks who love imaginative non-figurative art now, as there are – those who favour the figurative.
Like what you like – be yourself