Now that I’ve begun actively showing my abstract paintings,
I get the feeling everyone has been just waiting for an opportunity to find out what
the deal is with that non-objective stuff. People keep asking me how I make my
decisions when there is no content to guide me. They wonder where the ideas come from, considering it all seems so arbitrary. I've been asked several times how I know whether what I'm doing is any good. This is just the sort of thing most artists
prefer to keep to themselves, but, having been a teacher for almost as long as I’ve
been painting, I actually enjoy trying to answer these questions . I am no longer worried
about over-analyzing the process, having seen that there is more benefit than
loss in understanding more clearly what motivates me.
In that spirit, then, let’s take a look at a few abstract
paintings with an emphasis on how the artists chose to compose the page. Most,
but not all of these are watercolors. If there’s no name under a picture the
artist is unknown to me. Finding good abstract watercolor painters is not easy.
If you have any tips, please respond to this posting.
Paul Klee Serge Poliakoff
Edges? Hard. Overlap? Some, but still flat. Symmetrical? Not quite, but both are dependent on a central vertical axis. Distribution of shapes? Crowded into the middle. Only background shapes touch the frame. Color? Limited palette, lots of neutral. Value? Distinct light, middle and dark. Overall feeling? Both are pretty tidy paintings, even a bit uptight. Both have the feeling of having been drawn first, then colored in.
Now, how are the two different?
Shapes? Colors? Movement?
Here are a couple more to compare:
 |
Gerhard Richter This computer program has defeated me! I had big plans, but I'll settle now for simply stacking a bunch of interesting images. |
 |
Cathy Morton Stanion
Sam Francis
 Dodi Fredericks 
Paul Jenkins
   
Richard Diebenkorn
|
