I wouldn't separate color field painting, post-painterly abstraction from abstract expressionism.... I think it's just stupid because all of those movements are abstract and expressionist. What's the point of separating them? If we take Mark Rothko's and Barnett Newman's 'floating rectangles' and 'zips', for example, we can easily see that they literary made color field paintings, but I think they're just as Expressionist as the finest Pollock's; color field painters throw us the same mystery and emotions with their canvases! Even an Ad Reinhardt painting hides something in his monochrome canvases, even an Yves Klein's blue canvas has something to say! (even if his paintings are just a blue canvas, we can't ignore the fact that he 'invented' his own blue, how about that?)
In the same way, I think Post-painterly Abstraction (silly name) is just as Expressionist as a Color field or an Abstract Expressionist canvas. It is true that Post-painterly canvas seem rather empty compared to a Pollock's or a Rothko's, but I don't think that makes them more superficial or meaningless.
What I would accept to separate from Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting, and Post-Painterly abstraction is Hard-Edge painting... It is just not the same to see a free composition of biomorphic lines, curves and figures that a Hard-Edge strict painting! However, I think that Hard-Edge is just as important and REALLY influential nowadays; it may not be as obvious in painting or architectural mediums, but it IS in modern design. This is obvious, for example in the modern MWM Graphics (Matt W. Moore). I love them!
No comments:
Post a Comment