For best results wash in cool water separately, hang dry and iron with warm iron. For not so good results drag behind car through puddles and blow dry on roof rack.
For best results wash in cool water separately, hang dry and iron with warm iron. For not so good results drag behind car through puddles and blow dry on roof rack.
This is a study and investigation in how an artist and their technique are viewed as non-conformist by the standards of their contemporaries and pioneers by future generations and how the reactions of the work changed art for the better or worse through their differing methods, going against the standard of their time created something new and over spilled into the next movement between the years of 1860 to current day. I want to see if art progression is a thing that needed to happen in such a radical way or if simply being exceptionally good at your craft was enough.
If artist had kept to conformity where would art be now and would it be of any use to us in this modern time? Would it have the same impact in our lives?
For instance is abstract a process of art that should be a deeply personal, spontaneous and psychological experience, anything more than an idea among those who practice it. From purely an aesthetic view it seems very simple and has nothing to it other than shapes and colours presented to the viewer. It is one of the most recognisably different styles and most drastic of jumps visually as it is a pulley abstract idea of subject influenced by emotion.
Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red
Piet Mondrian 1872 1944
As a movement this is less visually gratifying to a casual viewer and as such is a turn off.Abstract artist Philip Edson says he thinks he "must have heard every possible reason why abstract art is not regarded as 'proper art' by some people." These include the argument that it's "easier than realistic painting and only failed realistic painters paint in an abstract style." Philip believes "People who usually put forward these views (rather strongly quite often) clearly feel threatened by something that they don't understand" and that "although abstract art has
This is a study and investigation in how an artist and their technique are viewed as non-conformist by the standards of their contemporaries and pioneers by future generations and how the reactions of the work changed art for the better or worse through their differing methods, going against the standard of their time created something new and over spilled into the next movement between the years of 1860 to current day. I want to see if art progression is a thing that needed to happen in such a radical way or if simply being exceptionally good at your craft was enough.
If artist had kept to conformity where would art be now and would it be of any use to us in this modern time? Would it have the same impact in our lives?
For instance is abstract a process of art that should be a deeply personal, spontaneous and psychological experience, anything more than an idea among those who practice it. From purely an aesthetic view it seems very simple and has nothing to it other than shapes and colours presented to the viewer. It is one of the most recognisably different styles and most drastic of jumps visually as it is a pulley abstract idea of subject influenced by emotion.
Composition with Yellow, Blue, and Red
Piet Mondrian 1872 1944
As a movement this is less visually gratifying to a casual viewer and as such is a turn off.Abstract artist Philip Edson says he thinks he "must have heard every possible reason why abstract art is not regarded as 'proper art' by some people." These include the argument that it's "easier than realistic painting and only failed realistic painters paint in an abstract style." Philip believes "People who usually put forward these views (rather strongly quite often) clearly feel threatened by something that they don't understand" and that "although abstract art has