[x]

deviantART

 

Primaries of Art - revised by =Jeff1966:iconJeff1966:





First of all, I would like to make clear that this chart is not meant to be all inclusive, but rather to be used as a guide for the general placement of art.  Sub categories of art such as fauvism, cubism, dadaism, minimalism, pop art, rococo, symbolism, ect... are not shown here.  Cubism, for example, I call a sub category, because basically it can be placed in the abstract expressionism area based on the amount of abstraction and imagination that is seen in such works.  Don't get me wrong, a lot of these sub classifications are important, at least historically, and at most stylistically.  But still they are little more than variations of some bigger grouping.

The functionality, of this chart, hinges on two sets of opposing characteristics.  Realistic vs. Abstract and Observation vs. Imagination.  I believe a mixture of these four "primaries" can define the visual characteristics of any work of art.  I say VISUAL characteristics, because such aspects as artist intent (political, social, or religious themes, ect...) have no relevance to the style in which a picture is executed.  I would leave this type of nitpicking to people who spend a lot of time philosophizing about art.

So if you don't feel like you should have to read Nietzsche to get an  idea, and possibly the wrong one, about how to classify your own art when posting it here on DA, I hope this simple, stylized chart will help.  It doesn't have all the details, but once you have an idea where the big pieces fit, the rest should be easy, if you have a mind to pursue such things later on.

I've been referred to as being a Neanderthal for attempting to simplify a classification system for something as complex as art.  I'll be the first to admit that I'm far from being a philosopher in this area.  But even Albert Einstein, being the mathematical genius that he was, once said he wanted an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, that would allow us to read the mind of god.  Of course, this chart is far from that, and I am far from Albert Einstein, but I still believe there is beauty, and elegance to be found in simplicity.  I seriously doubt that anyones art has ever been enriched by an art classification system.

I've been an artist my entire life.  I've spent much more time making art, than I have classifying it.  That doesn't mean that I can't tell one style from another, it just means that I don't care enough about the philosophy side of it to educate myself on every art movement that ever came along.  With that in mind, I hope you can understand why I look at art from a purely visual point of view.

I made this new "Primaries of Art" wheel after several conversations I've had with :iconartlmntl: and :iconGromyko: .  Only a slight modification from last years wheel.  Some of the terms I used on the old one were a bit confusing.  Realistic, and abstract needed to be direct opposites of each other, rather than being two of three primaries.  This one should be a bit more accurate, but basically, every thing in the old chart still corresponds to the new one.  I hope some of you will find it useful.

Please feel free to criticize, or make suggested changes to the chart I've made here.  But try to keep simplicity in mind.  If you can think of a better name for a given category, or something like that, I'd be glad to hear your suggestions.

About the abstract expressionism category:  I know that some abstracts can be expressive, but not all abstract expressionism is purely abstract.  "The Scream" is a great example of this.

Have fun,
Jeff
©2008-2009 =Jeff1966
Details
Submitted: May 17, 2008
File Size: 4.0 KB
Image Size: 196 KB
Resolution: 917×917
Comments: 31
Favourites & Collections: 7 [who?]

Views
Total: 287
Today: 0

Downloads
Total: 5
Today: 0

Thumb

Author's Comments

...
[x]

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0

Comments


I think you;re coming to something interesting. I know you've had enough of it for now. I don't blame you; but it's a good job.
It is really simple and obvious ... great chart !!

--
A Diamond with endless sides ...
Thank you again Hunter. Thanks for the fav as well. I'm not sure if it's anything new though, just old data put together in a different way.

--
Check out my gallery? [link]

There is no way to measure an artist, or their work, because nothing matters, but their vision. Their acceptance by the rest of the world is merely external.
Thanks. Simple is best I think. Thanks for the fav as well.

--
Check out my gallery? [link]

There is no way to measure an artist, or their work, because nothing matters, but their vision. Their acceptance by the rest of the world is merely external.
hey..if your the neanderthal then im the australophitecus...ha ha...no offence meant on that part by me philosopherizing every category of discourse i make, but this effort of yours really payed it...I like to say that you did a great job of simplifying...and i like it better than the other one last year...kudos my friend

--
:headbang:
"The Reality of Dreams is the Dream of Reality"
~EmptyHeads
=the-surreal-arts
~IIAAProject
=philippines
*visionaryartists
*CollaborativeCorpse
*TheExquisiteCorpse
*SurrealSociety
Hey, Jeff. Y'know, I was the one at work who tried to sort out the world via org charts and most people loved it. Others were frustrated by it, and eventually brought their political battles to me for discussion, even though there was nothing I could do other than discuss the color of their box or their relative size to their (organizational) superior.

So I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I kinda liked the first chart better, because it was more about a triad than a two-sided thing.Somehow, that was more inclusive than the two sides shown here.

Your earlier primaries of art was also simpler, more direct: real, abstract, and surreal - except boiling it down further seems to reduce it to a duality of impressionism and surrealism that I don't necessarily understand yet. I like your categories here, but I think I prefer the earlier translation.

Just my :twocents:
Thanks Laura. Your two cents is worth more than that to me. In a way, it's still the same chart. After the minor adjustment I made on it this year, I came to realize the true differences between impressionism, and surrealism. They both seem to be a mixture of the real, and the abstract. Where impressionism abstracts the real from what is seen, the surreal abstracts the real by filtering it through the imagination. I guess if you think of realistic, and abstract as being two destinations, impressionism, and surrealism are two different paths between them.

Your own works that you lable under the landscape and scenery category, would be placed almost dead center of the chart. Between impressionism and surrealism. I'm guessing you, at least sometimes, use a photo reference for your works? But you incorporate a lot of imagination into it. Almost as if you refuse to be a slave to your reference material. And I must say, your approach is very fascinating, and produces some of the most beautiful works I've ever seen.

--
Check out my gallery? [link]

There is no way to measure an artist, or their work, because nothing matters, but their vision. Their acceptance by the rest of the world is merely external.
Ha ha ha ha I would never call you an australopithecus. (for one, i wouldn't have thought of it. lol) You are a sophisticated thinking machine. I'm very glad to have you as a friend. We just have two completely different ways of thinking. I know that I've accused you of over complicating things, and I'm just as guilty of over simplifying things. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Thank you very much, not only for all of your input, but for you patience with me. I can be rather hard headed sometimes. I'm glad you think this chart is an improvement over the one from last year.

--
Check out my gallery? [link]

There is no way to measure an artist, or their work, because nothing matters, but their vision. Their acceptance by the rest of the world is merely external.
Im too flattered by such humbleness you showed me...
I accept that i sometimes complicate things, i think im more into deductive reasoning that is to break down or process information and further study each aspect relative to each other before arriving at a point...But i do believe that the truth is at the middle, between the complex and simplex but without references(yours in the simplex mine in the complex, there would not be a basis for a nuetralex)the midpoint would not be realized...

Im always appreciate your input in my works my friend...We may be opposing each others view popints but in the end we "Artists" are at home with each other in our creative niche...

Its nice to have you as a friend...

--
:headbang:
"The Reality of Dreams is the Dream of Reality"
~EmptyHeads
=the-surreal-arts
~IIAAProject
=philippines
*visionaryartists
*CollaborativeCorpse
*TheExquisiteCorpse
*SurrealSociety

Site Map