Wednesday, March 19, 2008

If it's objective, can it be abstract? -

"A Square Peg and a Round Hole #22"
digital drawing & collage by Mick Mather
I suppose we can ignore the question since I believe that a titled piece is no longer abstract. Sure, the visually expressed image may very well be, but once you've named it, you've objectified it in a way. Since taking this series from the monotype form to digital, I've been able to explore a whole new visual range that I like very much. Still, work that goes "untitled" has always been a botheration for me - indicative of an artist that won't, or more likely can't, take responsibility for their own work. Hmm, seems like I always raise more questions than answers, eh? :)

Labels: , , , ,

9 Comments:

Blogger SusuPetal said...

For once, I have absolutely no idea what this is.

Amazing!

Have to wait for the others to define:))

10:47 PM  
Blogger hpy said...

I tried some playing with my photos yesterday, but without any acceptable result. I still prefer yours.

2:19 AM  
Blogger Mick said...

susupetal:
No need to wait ... just read the title.

hpy:
I'm happy that you've been giving it a try. I have no idea what photo editors or filters you have but, experimenting in a playful way is the road to success. Keep at it. :)

10:25 AM  
Blogger Shani Thomas said...

Well, yeah, I think so. Can't a person have an abstract objective? The response aside, cool piece, I like it.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Mick said...

shani thomas:
Thanks for the response and the comment. My personal opinion aside, I'm still in the dark on the question. :)

11:25 AM  
Blogger Trijnie said...

I agree cool piece, you know I am fond off gemetric lines.
This works so 3-dim

3:52 AM  
Blogger Mick said...

trijnie:
Thank you, Trijnie, and thanks again to Shani. :)

6:03 AM  
Blogger Lisa Sarsfield said...

That is an interesting point you make/ask. I think I will need to get out the dictionary to see if abstract means what I think it does...I was wrong on iconic after all!
I disagree with your point about artists not taking responsibility for their piece by leaving it untitled. If I leave a piece untitled it's either I couldn't think of anything that sounded right or that didn't sound bland (I would call a Tuscany painting Tuscany as you know!) or it could be simply that I didn't want to put it in a box by giving it a label. Not signing it would be refusing to take responsibility for it. I have never thought how others might percieve an untitle piece in that respect so it is food for thought! Thanks for making my brain tick yet again:)

2:12 AM  
Blogger Mick said...

lisa sarsfield:
Thanks for your reply to this question. I suppose, when I think more about it, it's not as much the untitled aspect per se, as it is the combination of that with a statement such as, "let the viewer bring their own idea to the work" as an artist statement. I feel cheated by that point of view a little bit, personally. The issue is long and deep, where all sides are valid in their own way.

10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home