My first large painting was a colour field painting. I love the genre. I find that with viewing colour fields, I connect in three ways: I connect to one specific colour, then how that relates to the other colours, then to the shapes themselves. I find for myself that seeing minimalist paintings evoke a greater emotion from me because they are not telling me what to see or how to see it. I think I learn more about myself and my state of mind while delving into a colour field.
I totally agree with the emotional aspect of colour field paintings. However I find it very hard to explain how or why I feel such strong emotions. For instance I feel such strong emotions of awe and sublime when looking at Barnett Newman works. But I know someone who feels nothing with Barnett Newmans but says they get the same feeling of awe when looking at a Rothko. Whereas I feel nothing when looking at most Rothkos. I guess this subjective nature of colour field emotions is also what makes it so interesting.
Art is food for the eyes and the soul. Not everyone smells oatmeal cooking and it takes them to their happy place. If an artist appeals to everyone, they are not doing their job. They are pandering to the popular. I don't think great art happens when you are thinking about your commercial value. I have to admit I'm more appreciative of Rothko than Newman, though the Rothko paintings that have softer transitions such as Concord get into my soul. I think so much of it is what we need in our lives at the time. Do we need the structure of a clean line and a bold colour or the forgiveness of a softer brushstroke and hazier transitions. I may be a plebe but I don't think that a piece of art should have the same appeal to the same to an individual over the years. I think a good piece of art is a journey.
ARTiculations: I agree. I have never seen an original Newman, but hope to visit New York this year. I can, however, even in books and slides 'get lost' in a Newman. Why that is I simply do not have a clue. For me, it is enough to be there, so to speak. Subjective art for the subjective audience. Perhaps. Cheers.
Memory Amethyst: That was beautifully said. I don't think you could possibly be a plebe! Your remarks are too sensitive for that! I too believe that a good piece of art is a journey as you have said. Cheers.
A nicely balanced and articulated presentation. For me, what matters most in a painting I am viewing is to what extent it engages me perceptually, viscerally, or emotionally. It doesn't matter what style of painting it is. The effect it has on me is a reflection of my inner experience, or consciousness.
That was a wonderful video packed with information that non-artists who are trying to learn a thing or two about art, artists & techniques can easily grasp. Thanx so very much.
I came back to this post as I wanted to thank you for posts like this. For me you're not only you are giving a good insight to an art movement but a starting point for more research using correct terms. I'm a self taught paper cut artist and as I develop my style, it's good to have some idea where or what direction I want to explore. Cheers. ☺
I know nothing about art and have never really been able to grasp more than what I'm seeing, but there's something about the colour set used in Frank Stella's Chodorow.. I'm hooked! Thank you.
I know nothing about Art, with or without the capital A, so learning some of the thoughts of the artists behind these artworks is interesting to me, even though I have little in the way of opinions :) Thanks for the video!
Oh that was super helpful, thanks Betty. I often just find myself thinking of L.A. Story when faced with a painting of one color. Will remember this and see how it changes my perception next time I come across art of this kind.
I think the artist's intent matters very little in interpreting art. for example people associate colors with different things. if I saw say a white canvas with a black line painted down the center i would interpret that as two married people separated by death (cause white is usually associated with weddings in western cultures, and black is associated with death). To say that the colors themselves are art and have standalone meaning might remove the viewer from the experience and lessen the impact of the art's ability to help that person explore a concept or Idea -Omar ALSO GREAT VIDEO ^^
+KnowledgeableReaction great points! Perhaps it is not possible to disassociate colours and forms from external meaning, no matter how abstract. But it does seem like the artists during the colour field movement were more interested in Philosophical meaning, rather than literal and narrative meaning. And philosophical meaning is always much harder to grasp.
+Little Art Talks Thanks!! Most of the works I talk about in the video (Frankenthaler, Noland, Louis, Stella, etc) are in a Colour Field show here at the AGO right now. It's so marvellous to see all of it in one room :DD
Art expressions at it best is a subjective reaction to the present in its own time. Thats what make art exclusive and a uniq reprecentation. These paintings is a reprecentation of that. Good or bad? It is what it is - our time.
You paint on the floor with water based paint. It's quick. You make a lot of them and when you finally crop and stretch them you hope a few are less boring than the others. It's a production mentality. Keep in mind that Morris Louis only saw a few of his huge paintings actually cropped, stretched and hung vertically. There were 600 in the basement that remained on rolls after his death. Clement Greenberg, an art critic, determined what was the top and what was the bottom, and where the corners were. We ain't talkin' Cezanne here.
Thanks for the video! That was explained very well and didn’t assume huge amounts of prior knowledge like a lot of channels do. You’ve earned a subscriber. Seems like you have a wide range of knowledge, what’s your educational/work background?
You didn’t really explain what color field painting is. Helen Frankenthaler is actually quite concerned with shape composition and movement. What is the difference between Minimalism, Abstract Expressionism, Color Field Painting? What is the difference between Rothko, e.g. and Larry Poons? And Barnett Newman? Was Matisse a color field painter?
I don't think I'm capable of separating myself from my experience to "contemplate and explore the pure elements of the form itself". John Green has said before that the readers experience of his book is always different to what he had in his mind when he wrote it - and that's awesome. Artists seem to often what you approach their work in a specific way, it kind of comes across as a bit entitled and obnoxious really.
+Soliloquy yes it's funny because I was listening to John talking about ways people interpret his works on their podcast around the same time I was writing for this episode. And he had some very good insights. Although even John was saying how he is still very uncomfortable with how some people interpreted his books. Btw thanks for sharing my channel :)
I can understand that they have an idea they are trying to portray to their audience. You're welcome for the shoutout, you earned it with your content.
Serious question here: Is there anything that can be considered not Art? Is it strange to see Art everywhere, hear Art everywhere... touch Art ... taste Art everywhere... ? The forms the shapes, the sounds of everything, without any exception ... moves me tremendously.
...intelligent, sensible presentation... viewers are debating if it's art (or Art), interesting or not, suggestive beyond Form, etc... The difference between layman and artist (or designer), we all know, is that the former accepts the work as it is, unable to see the stronger version of it. 99% of the public fall in this category, at least according to the comments I read online. Back to the color field topic, it's obvious to me that there are first-rate painters and second or third-rate ones working in this manner. Their quality has nothing to do with the style, all are "color-fielders", the quality has to do, roughly put, with the way the deal with Gestalt...
Great video! I wish I had the opportunity to see the exhibition at the AGO. With Colour Field/Post-Painterly Abstraction, I also feel that they weren't afraid to also experiment with the size of their work. As a Colour Field artist myself (and only recently becoming comfortable/confident in calling myself as such), I am starting to paint on larger pieces of canvas and it feels more freeing...if that makes sense. Don't get me wrong, looking at a large blank canvas is terrifying, but once you get into it, nothing can stop you. You should also look up Friedel Dzubas, Jules Olitski, Sam Gilliam, Larry Poons, and Alma Thomas. Amazing painters. If you wanted to see some of my work, here's my website: www.fraserradford.com. Thanks again for the video.
Fraser Radford: Just viewed your website. Amazing as ARTiculations has noted, covers it beautifully, especially 'Wonder", which, I feel, is indeed, well... a wonder. When I win the lottery I will definitely be a regular customer! Best of luck in the future. Cheers.
These paintings are really interesting to me. The artists abandon choosing the meaning and somehow this act of leaving everything up to interpretation forces the audience to involve themselves in the painting. It basically hijacks your mind and leaves you lost in thought. No wonder it makes some people uncomfortable.
...I'm not sure what "better understanding color-field painting" means here... "Yeah, I understand the painting with the pink square, but I fail to understand the one with the black squiggle on top"...
I wish that people looked at other people the way we look at art or the way this video suggest we do. We would not be bound by just the surface of the skin but to look at it with more soul or heart. If we can find beauty in Picasso, Dali, Pollock, Rothko; then why we can't do the same with people?
Hmmm.. Sometimes I think art like that is overrated not by the way it is made, but by the way it is presented (and obviously the price tags... but, well, you do you). Looking beyond the painting is interesting, yes, but do I visit an art gallery for that, when they might just show the painting? Probably not. I'd read a book or an article or, say, watch a video on RUclips ;) The thing is, I would rather have minimalist art in my living or working space to decorate it, have it around me to enjoy the view while going on with my life, than have it somewhere in a gallery and visit "just to see the art". But what really puzzles me is people interpreting art beyond the obvious.. I mean.. A colorful box on a white background is.. a colorful box on a white background.. O_o? Well, whoever wants to keep doing that, be my guest, everyone needs something to do :D I'll keep enjoying that kind of art without trying to understand it. Understanding is not a requirement here :)
Sorry, your video did not help me to understand such paintings better. E.g. a Pollock's painting was shown in the movie Accountant and people there enjoyed and valued the painting a lot. But I don't get why. Even less understanding with paintings like Stella's or Newman's. From your explanations it sounds like they are some kind of experiments. In that case a book with good color schemes and patterns for interior design is much more valuable than the paitings, because such book will contain much more experiments, unique data, and just more interesting combinations of colors and shapes. An ordinary person will enjoy such book more than the paintings.
Good question. Money and value is a complicated question in our society, not just for art but for many things. Unfortunately why something costs more is not always because it's more "useful" or more "interesting." I made a video that explores some of the reasons why certain artworks cost more than others: ruclips.net/video/FZp4TlH9iss/видео.html , but there are probably many more interdependent reasons even beyond that.
Thanks, will watch that! Personally I kinda hate that art goes a lot into money direction, instead of just being source for people to get something like "direct mind orgasms" from it, pure happiness and such, like it is sometimes with "good" art, i.e. an art witch fits a person. I mean it is fair to pay nicely to an artist who creates such mind-blowing art, but it is sad to see when art is made for money and such art is discussed and praised much more. Also it is sad that maybe art goes away from ordinary people lives, because it gets this posh status, and ordinary people may consider it redundant and avoid trying to understand it, because of many false social dogmas/cliches about art.
I hate color field painting. They take no skill and the artists do not deserve that much fame/money. The thing about art is that the artists rise in skill throughout their hard work and practice. However that principle does not apply to minimalism & color field paintings so I consider it to be cheating (as compared to regular artists). My opinion, of course.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
My first large painting was a colour field painting. I love the genre. I find that with viewing colour fields, I connect in three ways: I connect to one specific colour, then how that relates to the other colours, then to the shapes themselves. I find for myself that seeing minimalist paintings evoke a greater emotion from me because they are not telling me what to see or how to see it. I think I learn more about myself and my state of mind while delving into a colour field.
I totally agree with the emotional aspect of colour field paintings. However I find it very hard to explain how or why I feel such strong emotions. For instance I feel such strong emotions of awe and sublime when looking at Barnett Newman works. But I know someone who feels nothing with Barnett Newmans but says they get the same feeling of awe when looking at a Rothko. Whereas I feel nothing when looking at most Rothkos. I guess this subjective nature of colour field emotions is also what makes it so interesting.
Art is food for the eyes and the soul. Not everyone smells oatmeal cooking and it takes them to their happy place. If an artist appeals to everyone, they are not doing their job. They are pandering to the popular. I don't think great art happens when you are thinking about your commercial value. I have to admit I'm more appreciative of Rothko than Newman, though the Rothko paintings that have softer transitions such as Concord get into my soul. I think so much of it is what we need in our lives at the time. Do we need the structure of a clean line and a bold colour or the forgiveness of a softer brushstroke and hazier transitions. I may be a plebe but I don't think that a piece of art should have the same appeal to the same to an individual over the years. I think a good piece of art is a journey.
ARTiculations: I agree. I have never seen an original Newman, but hope to visit New York this year. I can, however, even in books and slides 'get lost' in a Newman. Why that is I simply do not have a clue. For me, it is enough to be there, so to speak. Subjective art for the subjective audience. Perhaps. Cheers.
Memory Amethyst: That was beautifully said. I don't think you could possibly be a plebe! Your remarks are too sensitive for that! I too believe that a good piece of art is a journey as you have said. Cheers.
ARTiculations maybe the perspective, how the colours are placed. Just like in a photo
A nicely balanced and articulated presentation. For me, what matters most in a painting I am viewing is to what extent it engages me perceptually, viscerally, or emotionally. It doesn't matter what style of painting it is. The effect it has on me is a reflection of my inner experience, or consciousness.
That was a wonderful video packed with information that non-artists who are trying to learn a thing or two about art, artists & techniques can easily grasp. Thanx so very much.
Very well spoken and very clear to understand. Can't wait to hear more about this style of painting!
Very clear and easy to understand 🎉❤and the comment section is so respectful
I came back to this post as I wanted to thank you for posts like this. For me you're not only you are giving a good insight to an art movement but a starting point for more research using correct terms. I'm a self taught paper cut artist and as I develop my style, it's good to have some idea where or what direction I want to explore. Cheers. ☺
A super essay. Strong verbalization and articulation, and choice of words. I am very very impressed.
Aww thank you so much!!
oh I had no idea about the history of these things! That's very inspiring and fascinating :)
I know nothing about art and have never really been able to grasp more than what I'm seeing, but there's something about the colour set used in Frank Stella's Chodorow.. I'm hooked! Thank you.
I know nothing about Art, with or without the capital A, so learning some of the thoughts of the artists behind these artworks is interesting to me, even though I have little in the way of opinions :) Thanks for the video!
+Christopher Schmidt haha I believe everyone knows a thing or two about art no matter who you are. You just may not even know that you know! ;)
Oh that was super helpful, thanks Betty. I often just find myself thinking of L.A. Story when faced with a painting of one color.
Will remember this and see how it changes my perception next time I come across art of this kind.
Very valuable and inspirational painting styles. Really nice for meditation art practice too!
I think the artist's intent matters very little in interpreting art. for example people associate colors with different things. if I saw say a white canvas with a black line painted down the center i would interpret that as two married people separated by death (cause white is usually associated with weddings in western cultures, and black is associated with death). To say that the colors themselves are art and have standalone meaning might remove the viewer from the experience and lessen the impact of the art's ability to help that person explore a concept or Idea -Omar
ALSO GREAT VIDEO ^^
+KnowledgeableReaction great points! Perhaps it is not possible to disassociate colours and forms from external meaning, no matter how abstract. But it does seem like the artists during the colour field movement were more interested in Philosophical meaning, rather than literal and narrative meaning. And philosophical meaning is always much harder to grasp.
+ARTiculations very true metaphysical stuff is always harder to reify, but much more fascinating to contemplate
I freaking love Color Field Painting +w+ One of my favorite time periods :D great video, Betty!
+Little Art Talks Thanks!! Most of the works I talk about in the video (Frankenthaler, Noland, Louis, Stella, etc) are in a Colour Field show here at the AGO right now. It's so marvellous to see all of it in one room :DD
ARTiculations that sounds amazing!!
Great presentation. I love learning about the artist’s intention, but my enjoyment of a piece does not require it.
Thanks for speaking so well, and clearly expressing your provocative thoughts!
Aww thanks that means a lot :)
Art expressions at it best is a subjective reaction to the present in its own time. Thats what make art exclusive and a uniq reprecentation. These paintings is a reprecentation of that. Good or bad? It is what it is - our time.
Colour field is very interesting - and sometimes just so inviting that you just stay and let the painting vibrate your total being.
soliloquy sent me here and I love what're doing here.
+ZzzesChannel Excellent
You paint on the floor with water based paint. It's quick. You make a lot of them and when you finally crop and stretch them you hope a few are less boring than the others. It's a production mentality. Keep in mind that Morris Louis only saw a few of his huge paintings actually cropped, stretched and hung vertically. There were 600 in the basement that remained on rolls after his death. Clement Greenberg, an art critic, determined what was the top and what was the bottom, and where the corners were. We ain't talkin' Cezanne here.
Thanks for the video! That was explained very well and didn’t assume huge amounts of prior knowledge like a lot of channels do. You’ve earned a subscriber. Seems like you have a wide range of knowledge, what’s your educational/work background?
Lol the bloopers. Maybe one day Frank Stella WILL be a painting if artists keep pushing the boundaries of what we understand as "a painting" 😆❤️
You didn’t really explain what color field painting is. Helen Frankenthaler is actually quite concerned with shape composition and movement. What is the difference between Minimalism, Abstract Expressionism, Color Field Painting? What is the difference between Rothko, e.g. and Larry Poons? And Barnett Newman? Was Matisse a color field painter?
No mention of Yves Klein?
Thank you for this. As I am a Kenneth Noland fan, I found it fascinating. Hope that you do many more videos. Best of luck. Cheers.
Got here thanks to Soliloquy ... Great video!
Happy I could introduce you.
I don't think I'm capable of separating myself from my experience to "contemplate and explore the pure elements of the form itself". John Green has said before that the readers experience of his book is always different to what he had in his mind when he wrote it - and that's awesome. Artists seem to often what you approach their work in a specific way, it kind of comes across as a bit entitled and obnoxious really.
+Soliloquy yes it's funny because I was listening to John talking about ways people interpret his works on their podcast around the same time I was writing for this episode. And he had some very good insights. Although even John was saying how he is still very uncomfortable with how some people interpreted his books.
Btw thanks for sharing my channel :)
I can understand that they have an idea they are trying to portray to their audience. You're welcome for the shoutout, you earned it with your content.
Love this video thank you! :) keep up the good work!!!!
Cant believe this needed to be explained
Great video! Thanks for the amazing content you produce :}
+Pedro Pavioti Thanks so much for your support! :)
Serious question here: Is there anything that can be considered not Art? Is it strange to see Art everywhere, hear Art everywhere... touch Art ... taste Art everywhere... ? The forms the shapes, the sounds of everything, without any exception ... moves me tremendously.
Nice video!
...intelligent, sensible presentation... viewers are debating if it's art (or Art), interesting or not, suggestive beyond Form, etc...
The difference between layman and artist (or designer), we all know, is that the former accepts the work as it is, unable to see the stronger version of it. 99% of the public fall in this category, at least according to the comments I read online. Back to the color field topic, it's obvious to me that there are first-rate painters and second or third-rate ones working in this manner. Their quality has nothing to do with the style, all are "color-fielders", the quality has to do, roughly put, with the way the deal with Gestalt...
Love this video thank you so much!
Well said! thank you
0:25 I'd say that things are becoming simple with time, when we understand them better.
Love it
Thank you
Great video! I wish I had the opportunity to see the exhibition at the AGO. With Colour Field/Post-Painterly Abstraction, I also feel that they weren't afraid to also experiment with the size of their work. As a Colour Field artist myself (and only recently becoming comfortable/confident in calling myself as such), I am starting to paint on larger pieces of canvas and it feels more freeing...if that makes sense. Don't get me wrong, looking at a large blank canvas is terrifying, but once you get into it, nothing can stop you. You should also look up Friedel Dzubas, Jules Olitski, Sam Gilliam, Larry Poons, and Alma Thomas. Amazing painters. If you wanted to see some of my work, here's my website: www.fraserradford.com. Thanks again for the video.
+Fraser Radford thanks so much for your feedback! And I checked out some of your work - they are amazing!! Keep it up :)
Fraser Radford: Just viewed your website. Amazing as ARTiculations has noted, covers it beautifully, especially 'Wonder", which, I feel, is indeed, well... a wonder. When I win the lottery I will definitely be a regular customer! Best of luck in the future. Cheers.
Love it
These paintings are really interesting to me. The artists abandon choosing the meaning and somehow this act of leaving everything up to interpretation forces the audience to involve themselves in the painting. It basically hijacks your mind and leaves you lost in thought. No wonder it makes some people uncomfortable.
awesome :3
yes.
Great video! Stella is the best, baby.
...I'm not sure what "better understanding color-field painting" means here... "Yeah, I understand the painting with the pink square, but I fail to understand the one with the black squiggle on top"...
hm
isnt this like squares of color
idek
I wish that people looked at other people the way we look at art or the way this video suggest we do. We would not be bound by just the surface of the skin but to look at it with more soul or heart. If we can find beauty in Picasso, Dali, Pollock, Rothko; then why we can't do the same with people?
I like 'em
The start is me in a nutshell
Your speaking too fast, but great content. Can you elaborate on the interpretation of these paintings.
Hmmm.. Sometimes I think art like that is overrated not by the way it is made, but by the way it is presented (and obviously the price tags... but, well, you do you).
Looking beyond the painting is interesting, yes, but do I visit an art gallery for that, when they might just show the painting? Probably not. I'd read a book or an article or, say, watch a video on RUclips ;)
The thing is, I would rather have minimalist art in my living or working space to decorate it, have it around me to enjoy the view while going on with my life, than have it somewhere in a gallery and visit "just to see the art".
But what really puzzles me is people interpreting art beyond the obvious.. I mean.. A colorful box on a white background is.. a colorful box on a white background.. O_o?
Well, whoever wants to keep doing that, be my guest, everyone needs something to do :D
I'll keep enjoying that kind of art without trying to understand it. Understanding is not a requirement here :)
Sorry, your video did not help me to understand such paintings better.
E.g. a Pollock's painting was shown in the movie Accountant and people there enjoyed and valued the painting a lot. But I don't get why.
Even less understanding with paintings like Stella's or Newman's.
From your explanations it sounds like they are some kind of experiments. In that case a book with good color schemes and patterns for interior design is much more valuable than the paitings, because such book will contain much more experiments, unique data, and just more interesting combinations of colors and shapes.
An ordinary person will enjoy such book more than the paintings.
Good question. Money and value is a complicated question in our society, not just for art but for many things. Unfortunately why something costs more is not always because it's more "useful" or more "interesting." I made a video that explores some of the reasons why certain artworks cost more than others: ruclips.net/video/FZp4TlH9iss/видео.html , but there are probably many more interdependent reasons even beyond that.
Thanks, will watch that! Personally I kinda hate that art goes a lot into money direction, instead of just being source for people to get something like "direct mind orgasms" from it, pure happiness and such, like it is sometimes with "good" art, i.e. an art witch fits a person.
I mean it is fair to pay nicely to an artist who creates such mind-blowing art, but it is sad to see when art is made for money and such art is discussed and praised much more.
Also it is sad that maybe art goes away from ordinary people lives, because it gets this posh status, and ordinary people may consider it redundant and avoid trying to understand it, because of many false social dogmas/cliches about art.
More images, less commentary.
:o
I think they ran out out of ideas and left their art to pure chance!
I hate color field painting. They take no skill and the artists do not deserve that much fame/money.
The thing about art is that the artists rise in skill throughout their hard work and practice. However that principle does not apply to minimalism & color field paintings so I consider it to be cheating (as compared to regular artists). My opinion, of course.
That boils down to art value = effort needed to produce.
Which is untrue.
"they take no skill' . you're clearly not an artist.