gallery (21)

Where To Buy Art? virtosu art gallery

ff-p2.jpg

Where to purchase original art for your house, office, art collection or exclusive gift.

Locating wall art for a gallery wall is tough even once the remainder of your home is fully furnished. The price you can afford has to be considered. Part of the problem isn't knowing where to look, but there are plenty of places to buy art online. Armed with the knowledge of sources, you are sure to find a painting that you love or a landscape that's destined for collection, office or your dwelling.

Whether your question is where to purchase art or where to buy art in NYC it will lead you to some considerations or steps to make.

Step one: identify what sort of artwork you gravitate towards. Do you spend more time in contemporary art museums, or would you prefer masters? It can help direct your search As soon as you know what you enjoy. Our gallery is while having an impressive selection of classic oil paintings for discovering artists ideal.

Let your style direct you. From here, the website has filters that let you search within a color palette for art within a selection or even. Narrow down the choices to your budget and accessibility and complement your acquisition of art you love.

If you're considering acquiring some art and remain within a budget, you can purchase photographs, prints, and paintings . There's a selection of options ranging from art prints that are popular to handmade bits and even one of a kind creations.

Art and Reproductions

The artwork is the creation of the artist, and reproduction is what comes after. The artist creates the first. That is a first copy, if the artist creates a copy with his own hands.

Reproduction may also vary in cost. It depends on the type of material that's printed on and the level of details.

Art gallery

An art gallery is a building or space in the gallery collection, usually for the display of art. It might be in ownership and could be accessible to all or have restrictions in place. Although primarily concerned VIRTOSU ART GALLERY with art, art galleries are often used for hosting themed temporary exhibitions which often include loans or sales from collection or curated selection.

Emerging artists for modest budget

An emerging artist is at the early stages of his career, somebody who's caught the eye of gallery or an art critic, but has not yet established a good reputation among art buyers. That is the focus for clients with a budget.

Price point

Do not confuse price with value. A job that sells today for $20,000 can be worth millions once global fame is reached by the artist. If you're currently shopping for works do not believe the artwork you buy is bad. Cheap doesn't need to mean cheap, and become frustrated, self-conscious, and uninspired.

Art collecting

Fine art, made by an artist rather than mass generated by a computer, can be more. It is because of this that an art collection is not clutter, but becomes a collection of possessions that joy for generations to come. Do not know where to begin? Here's how to get started with your art collection.

Read more…

The Top Fine Art Galleries

ff-p2.jpg

Pushing your art platforms such as Twitter and Facebook can be a challenging task. It takes a good deal of commitment time, studying and networking until you get to see your Facebook Art Page pay off. On Twitter, you will need to have established a base of followers until your art will get noticed. This can be frustrating for an artist who would spend their time creating, rather than trying to ascertain the best hours to post on Twitter or Facebook.

Spare yourself time, energy and money, by locating a platform that specializes in art and art.

Here are some of the best art galleries that are online you should check out if you're trying to exhibit or buy artwork!

Virtosu Art Gallery

Virtosu Art Gallery is a platform which merges media art virtosuart.com/ and community. The art website is home to world renowned artists and art professionals, and also includes artist interviews and thoroughly interesting blog. The Fine Art Gallery hosts the annual Global Arts Award, as well as the yearly Virtosu Art Gallery Prize of $100,000 which is available to all artists.

The Talent Bank

Aimed at amateur artists wanting to upload their work and add of what inspired these pieces, videos. Not only can you exhibit your drawings, paintings and photography ; you may upload your poetry, movies, songs and animation projects!

Create your own gallery and the community of musicians, artists and writers will rates your work. This system allows people who are currently looking to purchase artwork, or those looking to collaborate to get a clearer idea of their artists' capacities and following. The team sends out promotional material to promoters, agents and publishers on a regular basis ensuring loads of exposure and opportunities for our community of folk.

Etsy

Etsy.com was first founded in 2005 and has established itself as one of the most popular communities for creative entrepreneurs on a worldwide scale.

ArtSpace

Then ArtSpace is the place for you, if you would like to exhibit your art on the stage as renowned artists such as Damien Hirst, Barbara Kruger and Jean-Michel Basquiat. ArtSpace have made it their mission to provide art lovers a simple way to buy art from galleries, cultural institutions and artists globally. The page comes equipped with its very own design shop where you can find an exciting choice of handmade and custom designed skateboards and surfboards, jewelry, artist books and small furniture.

Artspan

For at least fifteen years, Artspan has offered a home for artisans, photographers, designers and artists to exhibit their work and advertise their pieces. Artspan permits you to build your own artist website within their community, where buyers and connoisseurs can follow your work. A 10% commission applies not and ONLY if the buyer finds your job your site within the community. The different art genres and mediums are extremely varied; here you can find metal art designs by Kim Heath, stunning, handcrafted glass solar lights by Sunlit Creations and jewelry by Michelle McKibbin-Kable or Sally Shore Bijoux.

Read more…

Where to Buy Art Online

ff-p5.jpg

Design fashions aside, most people can agree that no room is complete with no art. The good news? There's loads of painting, prints, and more to be found if you know where to look. While artwork sales once revolved mainly around high-profile auctions and blue-chip gallery sales (many of which are shrouded in secrecy), the internet era has ushered in a slew of online retailers looking to make this ever-growing market accessible to a broader range of buyers--including broke apartment dwellers. With so many options our top picks have been rounded up by AD based on your artwork preference and amassing style. Read on to find the best places to buy affordable art online without clearing out your bank accounts and bring some excitement to your walls.

1. Virtosu Art Gallery

Fantastic for: Corporate Art and Art Collectors

Virtosu Art Gallery is currently a network of over 40 galleries worldwide, with an collectors foundation. Its Fine Art Devision, such as the galleries, specializes in limited-edition works from artists. Prints by greats. Virtosuart.com offeres numerous framing alternatives for prices starting around $140 for open editions and starting $400 for limited. Original paintings beginning $.

2. Society6

Fantastic for: Decoration

For people who prefer to swap their artwork out on a regular basis, the assorted collection of whimsical, affordable prints of Society6 is a great bet. Everything from sayings to watercolor florals, nature scenes, and abstracts can be had for as little as $20, which means that your gallery wall is limitless.

3. Artfinder

Fantastic for: The buy abstract art at virtosuart.com Discoverer

Founded in London in 2013 Artfinder is an online marketplace for original art from around the globe. Prices begin at $25, and the website has dedicated services for interior designers.

4. SaatchiArt

Fantastic for: Amateurs

SaatchiArt boasts an impressive collection of art at prices. Works, including sculpture, collage, painting, and photography, start limited-edition prints at $95, and at $200. The site also runs a art advisory service, where a team of curators will construct a collection for you according to your taste or space.

5. Paper Collective

Paper Collective sells artworks with a mission. The company collaborates to create cards, posters, prints, and accessories that are certified with a seal from the Danish government. That's good art!

6. Minted

Fantastic for: The Small-Business Supporter

Minted known for its wide assortment of cards, takes a similarly community-focused approach with prints, photography, and drawings. Pieces range from $21 (unframed) to $605 (framed). Artists have their own landing pages with bios and links and Minted's crowdsourcing model allows emerging artists to discover a platform. The site will start offering art, this summer.

7. AHA

Perfect for: The Street Art Enthusiast

While AHA's offerings run the gamut from clothing to home accessories to beauty products (all handmade by artisans around the world), its art section skews toward the bright, funky, and contemporary.

8. Tappan Collective

Perfect for: The Early Supporter

Founded in 2012 Jordan Klein and by Chelsea Neman, by connecting them to collectors Tappan aims to nurture artists. This support extends beyond the internet Tappan has curated exhibitions of its artists in spaces that are assorted throughout Los Angeles. You'll find everything to paintings upwards of $10,000 from handmade ceramics for around $100.

Read more…

Wall art 101

640-3.png

5 Tips for Buying the Perfect Wall Art

It can play a huge role, when it comes to decorating your home. For a lot of people, choosing the right bits to include could be difficult and leave them undecided. Buying the perfect wall art doesn't have to be a decision. Here are five tips to help you deck your walls.

Among the rules for buying art is to purchase what you personally like. Pick something that speaks to you and that's a reflection of who you are as an individual.

Do not feel obligated to buy artwork that is expensive for the sake of bragging rights, there are pieces which can be just as good as notable artists of yesteryear and the classics.

Then you can make certain you'll be happy with your selection.

Consider Size

Exactly like buying furniture and other household items, you must think about the space that you have and the size. Will seem out of place, while pieces will consume your entire room or worse, not match whatsoever.

When you've got a massive wall that you're looking to fill you can invest in a canvas, or create a collage with several pieces to fill the space.

Furthermore, there are a few art pieces which come in sets, which may use more wall space.

Match Your Décor

It would be wise to invest in art that fits with your current décor theme If you don't plan on redecorating. It doesn't have to be matchy-matchy, but rather complement what's already in place. If you have a neutral color space add a pop of color with artwork, or vice-versa.

Art is where you can show more personality and be eclectic and thus don't be afraid to get.

In addition, bear in mind the frame. Framed wall art should fit in with your theme. If you have components in the area consider a wooden frame or the same for metal.

Consider the Type

Artwork comes in various forms; canvas, photography, paintings, oil the art of wall art paintings and even metal wall artwork. While searching for the perfect addition, consider which type of art you'd like to include.

Photography art will be much cheaper than oil or canvas paintings, while the latter could have allure. There are some photos that will complement your house; pictures of people, nature, monuments and much more.

Metal wall art will enhance your living space; designs that are concrete or abstract add charm and dimension .

Get Educated

No one is born an art guru, and you don't have to become one to choose the wall art. It is, however, good to be educated about artists and art in order to understand value, and appreciate the art form.

Visit local art galleries or exhibits. Consult your artwork savvy friends for ideas and suggestions. Expose yourself to the world of art and you will feel much more equipped to purchase the wall art.

Read more…

Best artist 21st century

C1-2017-034_Copyweb400.jpg

Meet The Contemporary Inspirational Artist Gheorghe Virtosu

When talking about abstract art, we usually think of something completely detached from the reality, chaotic and irrational. However, looking into the essence of this creative phenomenon, one can notice that the very roots of Abstractionism are deeply connected with the surrounding existence. The material world starts tracing its images and patterns in our minds since the first moment we have opened our eyes.

Composition, harmony, proportions, light, colour, line, texture, mass, movement – all these are the elements of the ‘visual dictionary,’ composed by our physical sensations. Thus, the interaction with art objects is largely based on the ability to recognise the infinite manifestations of the material world in this or that image, even in the most abstract one.

Abstract art doesn’t deny Life but transforms it into the ‘artistic reality,’ which is no less true and haptic than the reality itself.

A work of art is a world in itself reflecting the senses and emotions of the artist’s world.

Hans Hofmann

Meet the artist - Gheorghe Virtosu

Being a self-taught artist, Gheorghe Virtosu still managed to grasp that subtle notion and embody it in his oil painting.

At first glance, his works are purely abstract. The compositions consist mostly of the fluid forms intertwining with each other and floating over the painting surface. However, our mind immediately recognizes biomorphic shapes in them. This approach reminds of the abstractions by famous abstract artists of the 21st century as Wassily Kandinsky and Joan Miró. Both of the artists were inspired by the interest in natural sciences, especially in embryology, zoology and microscope observations. Biomorphism allowed them to mute the rational side of our psyche, which often overshadows the pure voice of the animated matter.

Unlike Kandinsky or Miró, Virtosu doesn’t deny the rational side of art: each of his composition has a title, which immediately refers to some archetypes, stories or social concepts. Thus like Pablo Picasso, the master accepts narration as an essential part of his abstract works.

The titles create the bridge between his art and a viewer, giving the key to the interpretation of the images.

Paradoxically, Gheorghe doesn’t oust but welcomes the reality into his paintings.

adam and eve famous artist Zainab bint Muhammad (2017) contemporary inspirational artist

Adam and Eve (2017) Zainab bint Muhammad (2017)

Titles

Reading the titles of his canvases, one can be surprised with the variety of the subjects, as they embrace everything, from religion (both Christian and Islamic – Adam and Eve, Zainab bint Muhammad) to the prominent figures of the modernity and past (Winston Churchill, Henry VIII of England), and highly topical or permanent themes (Pride parade, The source of life).

However, all these subjects are united with the atmosphere of tension and desire to reveal certain conflict – the ‘stress point,’ as they call it in Physics.

Having a biography full of dramatic and difficult situations, Gheorghe Virtosu doesn’t try to reject and forget it – he courageously faces his inner challenges and sublimates the life experience into aesthetic form.

As Stansilav Jerzy Lec once wrote in thesys Best artists 21st century - “You can close your eyes to reality but not to memories.”

Winston Churchill (2017) famous abstract artist of the 21st century Henry VIII of England (2017) best artist 21st century

Winston Churchill (2017) Henry VIII of England (2017)

Energy

Such vigorous energy is skillfully depicted with the baroque-ish visual language of Virtosu’s abstract painting. The artist conveys the sense of drama and action through the complex and vibrant painting texture, done with loose, gestural brushwork, and intensive palette with the predominant red, black and blue best artist 21st century colors. The canvas becomes the substance the artist uses to ‘sculpt’ the image.

The brush can touch the surface delicately, or attack it with a swiping gesture, leaving tangible furrow-like traces. In order to amplify the sense of contradiction, he captures those bold, improvisational brushstrokes within the clear, well-thought outlines of geometric drawing. The latter resembles stained glass, adding the somewhat decorative flavor to the master’s works.

Pride Parade (2017) contemporary art The source of life (2017) contemporary abstract art

Pride Parade (2017) The source of life (2017)

Dynamics

Gheorghe Virtosu’s pieces prove the connection between Objective and Abstract. Leonardo da Vinci noted that, if our vision can grasp landscapes and faces in the accident blots, the same way it can ‘deconstruct,’ eliminate the integrity of an object’s image. And that purified natural form becomes the basic artistic material for the painter.

Nevertheless, Gheorghe Virtosu doesn’t copy the natural forms but rather follows their dynamics and movement: sudden twists of the line, compositional pauses, colouristic bursts are consonant with the natural processes of birth, growth, and decay. The abstract artist blurs the borders between ‘narrative’ and ‘non-narrative art,’ asking us

What is the reality, if not one of the most abstract things in the world

Original abstract art

Virtosu lives and works in London, Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Miami. The artist focuses on his knowledge experience in his artwork. He depicts social phenomena and characters in a unique abstract style. His work carries the stamp of authenticity.

The iconic painting series of Prophet Muhammad Daughters broke records in 2017 and became the highest-grossing work by a contemporary UK artist while Pride Parade masterpiece broke records in 2016 in the Netherlands. The artist keeps a low profile, motivating it with a busy schedule. More please read contemporary artist biography.

Read more…

C-1-2015-034-Che-Guevara.JPG

C-1-2015-014-ABBA.JPG

C-1-2015-018-Egyptian-spirit.JPG

I have taught drawing and painting to undergraduates for almost as long, and have been an abstract painter for about 25 years.

From both perspectives, I've concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on culture, continues to be marginalized -- it is a wallflower at the postmodern art celebration.

Take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the modern art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out from the Guggenheim Museum -- included not a single painter. In actuality, among painters, many artists and non-painters alike, it is quietly acknowledged that the impact on the culture of painting is nil. Painting is viewed as, at best, an activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a portion of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The public -- attached to television, films, and computers registers painting . The only question left is if there is any audience at all for painting and, even if there is to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, painting's most difficult to understand and irrelevant kind that exists. By limiting my topic to abstract painting -- which focuses on structure and builds a whole flat reality from colour, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and changes -- I can best address the question of why anybody should continue to create paintings, when so many more visually powerful media are available.

In safeguarding abstract painting, I must first toss overboard some excess baggage. I take as my model the abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who thought that the claims of the Abstract Expressionists in'50s and the 1940s amounted to poppycock. To give painting back its dignity, he set forth, both in his own paintings and at a series of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting is not. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to set forth my list of what painting isn't:

First painting is not a vehicle for political or social change, even though its leaders believed it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if a figurative painter paints a picture that asserts a specific social or political perspective, its effect -- in a society flooded with books, magazines, papers, photos, movies, television, video, and computers -- is ridiculously small. The possibilities are fewer with abstract painting.

Abstract painting is not avant-garde. It was in 1915, but it isn't anymore. With regard to its capacity to shock anyone -- the rallying cry of this now-defunct avant-garde -- painting now is feeble in comparison to the ability of the media mentioned previously.

Third, abstract painting has never been, and most likely never will be, broadly popular. Yes, its leaders -- Kandinsky, Malevich, Mondrian -- all held utopian hopes but they were demonstrated poignantly .

Abstract painting cannot offer you a lot of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in how religion or philosophy can. Put bluntly painting can't provide a replacement for God -- the loss of whom is the earmark of modernism. Indeed, the ability of painting to move people is considerably poorer than that of other arts, such as poetry, theater, books, or music.

On the other hand to keep in a more moderate, but no less passionate spirit than that of Reinhardt -- here is what abstract painting can do:

First, it offers what I'll call Small Hidden Meaning. To a viewer that can look at a still picture (for some, a difficult prospect), and who's knowledgeable enough to put an abstract painting in the context of modern art as a whole, abstract painting offers a de facto philosophical viewpoint on life. There is a mistaken belief, coming out of our lingering attachment and from our own narcissistic age, that abstraction is about self-expression. In the broadest sense it is, of course, but it's also about ideas -- the complex battle between order and chaos, by way of example, or the way the flux of the organic world modifies the rigor of geometry.

Second painting can enable us to be silent. From the 1989 French movie The Little Thief, a character attracted a roomful of people dancing wildly to stone'n' roll to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Painting makes for a quiet room in the arts, allowing for a slow waltz.

Third, abstract art provides a counter to the glut of things of our society. An abstract painting is a thing, of course. However, it reminds people of a world without things. It suggests the old concept, now hardly remembered, that there may be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's items can not affect.

Artists from the arrival of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- truth in understanding, truth in form, truth in substances. Many artists -- rightly -- are leery of the very idea of this gorgeous, because it so easily petrifies into some rigid standard. Once locked into place,"attractiveness" obliterates the wide array of subtle variations inside. Additionally, politics encircles beauty, making the subject difficult to discuss directly: For many, notions of the beautiful are simply"cultural constructs," used by dominant cultures to suppress"the Other."

Most baffling of all, folded up and hidden within the notion of beauty are values. Beauty implies an inequality from the way things look. If there is beauty, there's ugliness, and everything else in between.

But some people can not help their"elitist," or meritocratic, impulses when it comes to aesthetics, and are struck dumb by how utterly beautiful an abstract painting could be.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it's not a story, particularly none from the most readily accessible facet of civilization, which is all tales. We're bombarded by endless tales -- in television shows, advertisements, books, movies, and virtual-reality games. By means of telling stories, we are constantly teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading. Picking up on that aspect of our civilization, many non-abstract painters have added stories, or"narratives," into their paintings. But abstract painting resists narration and presents itself at once, as a whole or a oneness that cannot, and never will, tell a story.

A final virtue of abstract painting is its very uncomputer-like nature. The camera is so powerful that many people have reached the point where they can see the world just photographically or cinematically, and have lost the ability to see it in other ways. Before long, people will see the world only digitally.

It defies translation into information, information, entertainment, rational image, or any type of narrative. In the middle of a world in which everything we see is morphing into something different, abstract painting is one of the few things left that allow us to see the prospect of something's staying constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is true, then why isn't there more interest in this art? It will not do to start listing all the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with either figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with sound and video installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, but they're an aging lot, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of youthful and enthusiastic abstract painters. How can it be that abstract painting, a significant participant in most of 20th-century artwork, has arrived at this sorry point, where it is barely a contender?

And how can it be that painting in general, not just abstract painting, has arrived at this point?

I suggest that the answer is rooted in two irrevocable changes that happened in the 19th century: First, the invention of photography, in 1839, and second, the general upheaval in doctrine. The invention of photography enabled anyone, even someone who had no painting or drawing skills, to fix an image of the real world on a level surface quickly and accurately. The painter suddenly seemed irrelevant and slow in his way of replicating the appearance of reality.

More important, photography threw into question the whole raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera has been recording the world objectively through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, by comparison, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters couldn't compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would assert an alternative objective reality: All individual perceptions are accurate -- at least to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid. Impressionist artists in the 1870s and 1880s, for all their stylistic differences, shared the conviction that it was the individual artist's eyesight that was true.

That fundamental change in outlook changed the look of art in the modern era. It was a shift from aesthetic impact, which relied on artifice -- which is, faking, telling lies -- to intent, which relied on telling the truth, as being sincere, known by artists.

After Freud and Darwin, artists didn't concern themselves with beauty anymore, except as an aside, or a byproduct, since they played and manipulated with form. Philosophy attempted to come forth with a solution. It would protect beauty by separating it from destructive scientific investigation, and leave it alone as a"subjective" judgment. Philosophy yielded its primary position as objective interpreter of the world to science. Science subsequently broke leaving everything else behind, as rubble, including poor doctrine. That rubble reconstituted itself as the substance of relativism -- the idea that moral and aesthetic judgments are subject to continual flux. Relativism was around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the victory of the relativist position.

The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the history of 20th-century artwork into one sentence: The past 80 years have consisted basically of a battle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who've tried to rebuild classical philosophical truths in a modern visual language. To put it differently, it's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. Although more by sacrifice than by knockout -- and Duchamp is the winner.

It required Duchamp a while to win. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it had been coasting on its inflated standing; at that point, Pop Art sprouted from the smart, witty seed that Duchamp had implanted a half-century earlier. By simultaneously mocking and celebrating the modern culture of"stuff," Pop made the abstract painter's self-absorbed escape look equally elitist and silly. Pop Art consisted of paintings on canvas, to be certain. But they were self-destructive. Pop Art's implied message was that it was the appropriated images that counted -- the Campbell's soup cans, Marilyn Monroe -- and not the way in which paint was placed on the canvas. Painting had been profoundly centered on the artist's signature, but painting worried picture or the content.

Since World War II, our civilization has steadily evolved into what we identify as"mass culture" -- one in which millions of people's interests are simultaneously and speedily gratified through popular music, movies, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care about the slow action called painting. Beginning in early'70s and the late'60s , young musicians, drawn to the art forms of installation, performance, and video art, abandoned painting. They'd grown up with TV and rock'n' roll; they were hip, smart, and eloquent; they knew and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We reclusive and out-of-it and trendy on the one hand, have arrived at a branch in the art world: hip on the other. How can painters who need to have an impact on their culture remain at the face of that?

First, they must aggressively distinguish themselves from popular culture, rather than try to become bit players. They have to reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a viewer. Abstract artists are creating paintings that can't be understood by everybody. They need to admit that to find meaning in abstract painting requires some work, and even some help.

And painters need to celebrate loudly, rather than apologize for, their artwork's convention-bound nature. That moment is forever over, although the revolution itself -- the second that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying. For abstract painters and their viewers, the experience is profoundly different from what it had been due to their revolutionary forebears. Art is a quiet pleasure as opposed to a dizzying thrill. The conventions are created, just as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its rules rather than deconstructing them.

Yes, abstract art is elitist, and artists must be upfront about that. However, like and you don't have to stop loving The X-Files or the struggles to understand abstract art. Nor do you have to be a white male of royal blood. Yes, it is a product of European culture, but are penicillin, computers, airplanes, and this essay. There are abstract painters, and patrons of painting, of both genders and all races.

Many, if not most, young artists hoping to get up a rung don't care one whit about painting or its own tradition in Western history. In actuality, aside from the fashion for discovering one's"roots," that they aren't interested in seeing history as something to belong to, or to be a part of, or to carry forward. Although a lot of young, non-white artists refer to their own heritage in their art, the issue for them is more identity than aesthetics. The point is, most young artists (whatever their race or sex) prefer to see history, especially art history, as a enormous amount of information that sometimes is useful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which largely is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

If we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's picture of our condition, one viable premise: It's history, used properly can be taken from him by us. But what is the use of history? People today distrust it. Because they are convinced that knowledge is a smokescreen for power they wish to know and who's doing the telling.

However, it's only when the non-ironic use of visual history is coupled with the desire that is particular to make images that the young artist, in particular, can learn painted abstract graphics and the meaning of abstract painting's visual language. No matter what, some people -- even some artists -- will not"get" abstract painting, for reasons that range in their belief that all art is political for their poor visual aptitude. In the end painting will attract an audience more likely to read the Aeneid in Latin than to watch Sarah McLachlan on MTV.

But small because its audience may be, abstract painting can say something about modern culture. Abstract painters don't begin their paintings in a vacuum. Rather, they build on the foundation of historical abstraction. Individual paintings are caused by an accumulation of errors, wrong turns, corrections, and resolutions. Abstract painters paint the way rebelling against the options and the givens, the actions that are abstract oil painting gallery purposeful and the injuries and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every man at 50 has. In space and virtual time, there's absolutely no 50-year-old face. In a computer picture, of course, there no longer exists the notion of a mistake, because all evidence of it is concurrently retrievable and destroyable. The image does not have any wrinkles when we take away the ability to make a real mistake in art, one which can not be wiped out. It carries a thin, rigid veneer, like the continuously lifted, stretched faces of 65-year-old Park Avenue matrons. At a glance, those women look nice. But a longer look yields blankness. It is through our errors and, indeed, our sins, both in life and in art, that we gain the capacity for possible redemption and innovative improvisation.

Since it attracted attention painting was the sound in the culture. Now, the culture is the noise, and painting -- especially abstract painting -- attracts little attention in the art world or in the culture at large. Abstract painting's saving virtue is that it provides us quiet, not noise today. A cultural crisis is indeed at the end of the 20th century: the level of everything, and the passing of stillness. Our culture cans not change, but neither can setup art, computer art, nor attempts at appropriation, no matter how smart and informed they are. Those art forms that appropriate the media are doomed to look pale compared to them, or worse, to be squeezed down to their enormous black hole. Abstract painting's power is this: It is a world superbly separate from our materialistic, morphing, ironic, stylish age.

Read more…

DSC09835-Copy.jpg

C-1-2015-001-Aladdin.JPG

C-1-2015-014-ABBA.JPG

I have taught drawing and painting to undergraduates for nearly as long, and have been an abstract painter for about 25 years.

From both perspectives, I have concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on culture, continues to be marginalized -- it's a wallflower at the postmodern art party.

Take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the contemporary art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out from the Guggenheim Museum -- included not one painter. In actuality, among non-painters, painters and many artists alike, it is quietly acknowledged that painting's effect on the culture is nil. Painting is seen as, at best, an activity for a few diehards. At worst, it is considered destructively elitist, a portion of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. Painting is -- hardly registered by the general public -- attached to computers, television, and movies as having anything relevant to say. The only question is if there's any audience at all for painting and, even if there is, how to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, the most difficult to understand and irrelevant kind of painting that exists. By limiting my subject to abstract painting -- which concentrates on structure and builds a whole flat reality from colour, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and changes -- I can best deal with the question of why anyone should continue to create paintings, when so many more visually powerful media are available.

In defending abstract painting, I must toss overboard some excess baggage. I take the iconoclastic painter Ad Reinhardt, who thought that the claims of the Abstract Expressionists in the 1940s and'50s amounted to poppycock. To provide painting back its dignity, he put forth, both in his own paintings and in a series of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting is not. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to put of what abstract painting isn't my list forth:

First, abstract painting isn't a vehicle for political or social change, even if its pioneers thought it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if a figurative painter paints a picture that asserts a specific social or political point of view, its effect -- in a society bombarded with books, magazines, newspapers, photos, movies, television, video, and computers -- is ridiculously small. The possibilities are fewer with painting.

Abstract painting isn't avant-garde. It isn't anymore, although it was in 1915. In terms of its ability to shock anybody -- the rallying cry of the now-defunct avant-garde -- painting now is weak in comparison to the power of the media.

Abstract painting has never been, and likely never will be, broadly popular. Yes, its pioneers -- Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian held utopian hopes but they have been proved poignantly wrong.

Abstract painting can't offer a lot of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in how philosophy or religion can. Put bluntly, abstract painting can't provide a substitute for God -- of whom is the earmark of modernism, the loss. The ability of painting to move people at all is much weaker than that of other arts, such as novels, theater, music, or poetry.

On the other hand to continue at a soul than that of Reinhardt -- here is what abstract painting could do:

First, it offers what I'll call Little Hidden Meaning. To a viewer that can look at a still image (for some, a difficult prospect), and who is knowledgeable enough to place an abstract painting in the context of contemporary art as a whole, abstract painting offers a de facto philosophical viewpoint on life. A notion is, coming from our own narcissistic age, that abstraction is about self-expression and from our lingering attachment to Romanticism. In the broadest sense it is, of course, but it's also about ideas -- that the intricate struggle between order and chaos, for example, or how the flux of the organic world modifies the rigor of geometry.

Second, abstract painting can empower us to be silent. In the 1989 French movie The Little Thief, a character brought a roomful of people dancing wildly to stone'n' roll to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Painting makes allowing for a slow waltz.

Third art offers a counter to our society's glut of items. An abstract painting is a thing, of course, a part of the material world. But it reminds people of a planet. It suggests the old concept, now barely remembered, that there may be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's things can not affect.

Fourth, abstract painting is often, quite simply, beautiful -- although that assertion is subject to tremendous dispute. Artists from the arrival of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- truth in understanding, truth in form, truth in substances. Many artists -- rightly -- are suspicious of the very idea of this gorgeous, as it so readily petrifies into a rigid standard. Once locked into place,"beauty" obliterates the wide array of subtle variations within it.

Most baffling of all, hidden within the notion of beauty and folded up are values that are conflicting. Beauty implies an inequality in the way things look. There's everything in between, and ugliness, if there is beauty. That type of ranking offends our democratic sense of justice, because we moderns have defined justice as that which most closely approximates equality.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it's not a story, especially none from the most easily accessible facet of culture, which is all tales. We are bombarded by endless stories -- in television shows, advertisements, books, movies, and virtual-reality games. We're always teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading, by means of telling stories. Picking up on that aspect of our civilization, many non-abstract painters have inserted stories, or"narratives," into their paintings.

A last virtue of painting is its very uncamera-like nature. The camera is so powerful that lots of people have reached the point where they can see the world only photographically or cinematically, and have lost the ability to see it in other ways.

What abstract painting provides us in the end of the 20th century is, in sum, a futile non-story, a non-blinking"thereness," without reference to anything other than itself and its own heritage. It defies translation to data, information, entertainment, rational image, or any type of narrative. In the midst of a world in which everything we see is morphing into something else, abstract painting is among the few things left that allow us to see the possibility of something's staying constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is true, then why isn't there more interest in this art? It will not do to begin listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with either figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with video and sound installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, however they are an aging lot, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of youthful and passionate abstract painters. How is it that abstract painting, a significant player in most of 20th-century artwork, has arrived at this sorry point, where it is barely a contender?

And how can it be that painting in general, not just abstract painting, has arrived now?

I suggest that the answer is rooted in two irrevocable changes that took place in the 19th century: First, the invention of photography, in 1839, and second, the general upheaval in doctrine. The invention of photography enabled anybody, even someone who had no drawing or painting skills, to resolve a picture of the real world onto a level surface quickly and correctly. The painter suddenly seemed slow and insignificant in his way of replicating the appearance of reality.

More significant, photography threw into question the entire raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera was recording the world through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, in contrast, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters could not compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would assert an alternative objective reality: All individual perceptions are accurate -- at least to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid. Impressionist artists in the 1870s and 1880s, for all their stylistic differences, shared the conviction that it was the individual artist's eyesight that was objectively true.

It was a change from aesthetic impact, which relied on artifice -- that is, faking, telling lies -- to intent, which relied on telling the truth, as being sincere, understood original abstract art by artists.

After Freud and Darwin, themselves did not concern with beauty , except as a byproduct, or an aside, as they manipulated and played with form. It would protect beauty by separating it from destructive scientific investigation, and leave it alone as a"subjective" judgment. Philosophy yielded its primary position as interpreter of the world to science. Science then broke leaving everything behind, including doctrine that was poor, as rubble. That rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's substance -- the notion that moral and aesthetic judgments are subject to flux. Relativism had been around at least since Plato, of course, but the modern age marked the success of the position.

The relativist reply to practically any pretension to universal truth, beauty, or authority is, in effect,"Oh, yeah?" The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the history of 20th-century artwork into one sentence: The past 80 years have consisted basically of a battle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who have tried to reconstruct classical philosophical truths in a contemporary visual language. To put it differently, it's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. And Duchamp is the winner -- although forfeit.

It required Duchamp some time to win -- until the 1960s. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it had been coasting on its inflated reputation; at there, Pop Art sprouted from the smart, witty seed that Duchamp had implanted a half-century earlier. By simultaneously mocking and celebrating the modern culture of"stuff," Pop made the abstract painter's self-absorbed retreat look equally elitist and silly. Pop Art consisted of paintings on canvas to be certain. But they were self-destructive. Painting had always been centered on the artist's signature, but now painting concerned the content or picture.

Since World War II, our culture has steadily evolved into what we recognize as"mass culture" -- one where millions of people's interests are concurrently and gratified through popular music, films, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care about the slow action called painting. Beginning in early'70s and the late'60s , young musicians, drawn to the new art forms of video art, and installation, performance, abandoned painting in droves. They had grown up with TV and rock'n' roll; they were hip, smart, and eloquent; they knew and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We reclusive and out-of-it and trendy on the one hand, have now arrived at a branch in the art world: hip on the other. How do continue in the face of that?

They must distinguish themselves rather than try to become bit players. They have to reargue the case for high art -- an art requiring a subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional viewer. Abstract artists are making . They need to admit this to find meaning in painting requires some work, and even some help.

And abstract painters need to observe loudly, rather than apologize for, the convention-bound nature of the art. These artists work within a rectangle, they use paint on canvas, and they follow a century of developed traditions of abstract painting. The revolution itself -- the early-modern moment that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying, but that moment is forever over. For abstract painters and their audiences, the experience is profoundly different from what it had been for their forebears. Abstract art is a pleasure as opposed to a dizzying thrill. The conventions are established, just as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its rules rather than deconstructing them.

Yes art is elitist, and artists should be up-front about that. But like and you don't need to stop loving the struggles or The X-Files to understand art. Nor do you have to be a white male of European blood. Yes, it's a product of culture, but are penicillin, computers, planes, and this essay. There are painters, and patrons of painting, of both sexes and all races.

Many, if not most artists hoping to get a rung up on the art-world ladder don't care one whit about painting or its own tradition in history, today. In actuality, aside from the fashion for discovering one's"roots," that they aren't interested in seeing history as something to belong to, or to be a part of, or to proceed. The issue for them is identity than aesthetics although young artists indeed refer to their own racial heritage in their artwork. The point is, most young musicians (whatever their race or sex) prefer to see history, especially art history, as a enormous amount of information that at times is useful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which mostly is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

One viable premise: It is history, used properly can be taken from him by us, if we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's image of our condition. But what is the right use of history? People today distrust it. Because they are convinced that knowledge is a smokescreen for electricity they want to know and who is doing the telling.

Unfortunately, however, it's only when the non-ironic use of history is coupled with the desire to produce images that the young artist, in particular, can learn painted abstract graphics and the meaning of painting's language. Regardless of what, some people -- even some artists -- will never"get" abstract painting, for reasons that range in their belief that all art is political to their inferior visual aptitude. In the end, abstract painting is going to attract an audience more likely than to watch Sarah McLachlan on MTV, to read the Aeneid in Latin.

But small as its audience may be, abstract painting can say something. As a colleague of mine from Hofstra University, the late Michael Gordon (himself a painter), frequently argued, it sets up a powerful moral parallel to the way in which we lead our lives. Painters do not start their paintings . They build on the foundation of abstraction that is historical. Individual paintings are the result of an accumulation of wrong turns mistakes, corrections, and settlements. Abstract painters paint the way rebelling against the options and the givens, the actions that are purposeful and the injuries and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect visual metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every guy at 50 has. In space and virtual time, there is not any 50-year-old face. Everything is a toggle option that wipes out the previous smiles or frowns and obliterates"bad" or"wrong" choices. In a computer picture, of course, there no longer exists the concept of a mistake, because all evidence of it is retrievable and destroyable. The last image has no wrinkles, when we take away the ability to make a real error in art, one which can't be wiped out. It carries a thin, stiff veneer, such as the continuously stretched faces of Park Avenue matrons. At a glance, those ladies look fine. But a look yields that are longer blankness. It is through our mistakes and, indeed, our sins, both in life and in art, we gain the capacity for redemption that is possible and innovative improvisation.

Because it attracted attention, painting was the noise in the culture. The culture is the noise, and painting -- especially abstract painting -- attracts little attention, either in the art world or in the culture at large. The saving virtue of abstract painting is that it provides us silent, not noise today. There's indeed a cultural crisis at the end of the 20th century: the continuous level of everything, and the death of stillness. Abstract painting cannot alter our culture, but neither can setup art, computer art, nor new-media attempts at appropriation, no matter how savvy and smart they are. Those art forms that the popular media that is appropriate are doomed to look worse, or pale in comparison to them, to be squeezed down to their enormous hole. The ability of abstract painting is this: It is a world beautifully separate from our postmodern, materialistic, morphing, ironic, age that is hip.

Read more…

DSC09861-Copy.jpg

C-1-2015-034-Che-Guevara.JPG

C-1-2016-057-Babylonian-human-Copy.JPG

I have been an abstract painter for about 25 years, and have taught drawing and painting to undergraduates for almost as long.

From both perspectives, I have concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on contemporary culture, has been marginalized -- it's a wallflower in the postmodern art party.

Take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the contemporary art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out by the Guggenheim Museum -- included not one painter. In fact, among painters, many artists and non-painters alike, it's quietly acknowledged that the impact on the culture of painting is nil. Painting is viewed as, at best, an esoteric activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a portion of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The general public -- attached to films, television, and computers -- barely registers painting as having anything relevant to say. The only question left is whether there is any audience at all for painting and, if there is to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, painting's seemingly irrelevant and hardest to understand sort that exists. By restricting my topic to abstract painting -- that concentrates on structure and builds a whole flat reality from color, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and adjustments -- I can best address the question of why anybody should continue to create paintings, when so many more visually powerful media are available.

In defending abstract painting, I need to first toss overboard some excess baggage. I take as my model the abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who believed that the Abstract Expressionists in the 1940s and'50s' claims amounted to poppycock. To provide painting back its dignity, he put forth, both in his own paintings and at a series of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting isn't. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to set forth my list of what painting isn't:

First painting isn't a vehicle for social or political change, even though its leaders believed it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if even a figurative painter paints a picture that argues a specific social or political point of view, its impact -- in a society flooded with books, magazines, newspapers, photos, movies, tv, video, and computers -- is ridiculously small. The chances are even fewer with painting.

Second painting is not avant-garde. It isn't anymore, although it was in 1915. In terms of its ability to shock anyone -- the rallying cry of the now-defunct avant-garde -- painting now is weak in comparison to the ability of the media mentioned above.

Third, abstract painting hasn't been, and likely never will be popular. Yes, its leaders -- Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian -- all held utopian hopes for its universal appeal, but they have been demonstrated .

Finally, abstract painting cannot offer you much of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in how religion or philosophy can. Put bluntly, abstract painting cannot provide a substitute for God -- the loss of whom is the earmark of modernism. Indeed, the ability of abstract painting to move people is much poorer than that of other arts, such as theater, music, novels, or poetry.

To continue at a spirit than that of Reinhardt -- here's what painting could do:

First, it provides what I'll call Small Hidden Meaning. To a viewer who can look at a still image (for some, a tricky prospect), and who's educated enough to put an abstract painting in the context of contemporary art as a whole, abstract painting provides a de facto philosophical point of view on life. A notion is, coming from our own narcissistic age, that abstraction is about self-expression and from our lingering attachment to Romanticism. In the broadest sense it's, of course, but it is also about ideas -- that the intricate battle between order and chaos, for instance, or how the flux of the natural world modifies the rigor of geometry.

Second painting can empower us to be silent. In the 1989 French movie The Little Thief, a character attracted a roomful of people dancing wildly to rock'n' roster to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Painting makes for a room in the arts, allowing for a slow waltz.

Abstract art provides a counter to our society's glut of things. An abstract painting is part of the material world, itself a thing, of course. But it reminds people of a planet. It suggests the old idea, now hardly remembered, that there might be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's items can not affect.

Artists from the birth of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- reality in perception, truth in form, truth in substances. Many artists -- rightly -- are leery of the very idea of the gorgeous, because it so readily petrifies into some rigid standard. Once locked into place,"attractiveness" obliterates the wide selection of subtle variations within it.

Most baffling of all, hidden within the notion of attractiveness and folded up are values that are conflicting. Beauty implies an inequality from how things look. If there's beauty, there's ugliness, and everything else in between.

But some people can not help their"elitist," or meritocratic, impulses when it comes to aesthetics, and are struck dumb by how utterly amazing an abstract painting can be.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it is not a story, particularly none from the most easily accessible side of culture, which is all tales. We are bombarded with endless tales -- in television shows, advertisements, books, movies, and virtual-reality games. By way of telling stories, We're always teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading. Picking up on that aspect of our civilization, many non-abstract painters have added stories, or"narratives," in their paintings.

A final virtue of painting is its very uncomputer-like nature. Before long, people will see the world only digitally.

What abstract painting provides us at the end of the 20th century is, in sum, a useless non-story, a non-blinking"thereness," with reference to anything other than itself and its own tradition. It defies translation to data, information, entertainment, rational image, or any type of narrative. It presents an ineffable equilibrium of sensation, experience, and knowledge. In the midst of a world where everything we see is morphing into something else, abstract painting is among the few things left that enable us to see the prospect of something's remaining constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is true, then why isn't there more interest in this art? It will not do to start listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with video and sound installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, however they're an aging bunch, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of young and passionate abstract painters. How is it that abstract painting, a significant player in most of 20th-century art, has arrived at this sorry point, where it is barely a contender?

And how is it that painting in general, not just abstract painting, has arrived at this point?

The invention of photography allowed anyone, even someone who had no painting or drawing skills, to resolve an image of the real world onto a level surface quickly and accurately. The painter suddenly seemed irrelevant and slow in his way of replicating the appearance of reality.

More significant, photography threw into question the whole raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera has been recording the world objectively through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, by comparison, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters could not compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would assert an alternative objective truth: All individual perceptions are true -- to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid.

It was a shift from effect, which depended on artifice -- which is, faking, telling lies -- to aesthetic intent, which depended on telling the truth, as being true understood by artists.

After Freud and Darwin, artists didn't concern themselves with beauty , except as an aside, or a byproduct, as they played and manipulated with form. Philosophy yielded its position as objective interpreter of the world. Science then broke loose, leaving everything else behind, as rubble that was abstract, including doctrine. That rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's substance -- the notion that aesthetic and moral judgments are subject to flux. Relativism was around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the victory of the position.

The relativist reply to any pretension to universal truth, beauty, or authority is, in effect,"Oh, yeah?" Relativism's hatchet man is irony. To condense an awful lot of the background of 20th-century art into one sentence: The past 80 years have consisted essentially of a struggle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who've tried to rebuild classical philosophical truths in a contemporary visual language. To put it differently, it's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. Although more by sacrifice -- and Duchamp is the winner.

It required Duchamp a while to win. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it had been coasting on its inflated reputation; at that point, Pop Art sprouted from the smart, witty seed that Duchamp had implanted a half-century earlier. To be sure, Pop Art consisted mainly of paintings on canvas. But they were self-destructive. Painting had always been profoundly centered on the artist's signature, but painting concerned the content or image.

Since World War II, our culture has steadily evolved to what we identify as"mass culture" -- one where millions of people's interests are concurrently and speedily gratified through popular music, films, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care about the strange action. Beginning in early'70s and the late'60s musicians, attracted to the new art forms of installation, performance, and video art, abandoned painting in droves. They had grown up with TV and stone'n' roster; they were hip, smart, and eloquent; they knew and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We have now arrived at a division in the art world: fashionable and trendy on the one hand, reclusive and out-of-it on the other. How do abstract painters who want to have an effect on their culture continue in the face of that?

First, they have to aggressively separate themselves rather than try to be players. They must reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional viewer. Artists are currently creating paintings that cannot be understood by everybody. They need to admit that to find meaning in painting takes some aid, and even some work.

And painters need to celebrate loudly, rather than apologize for, the convention-bound character of the art. These artists work within a rectangle, they use paint on canvas, and they follow a century of traditions of abstract painting. The revolution itself -- the second that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying, but that moment is forever over. For abstract painters and their viewers, the experience is profoundly different from what it had been due to their forebears. Abstract art is a pleasure rather than a thrill. The conventions are created, as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its rules rather than deconstructing them.

Yes, abstract art is elitist, and artists should be upfront about that. But you don't need to stop loving The X-Files or the struggles to understand and enjoy abstract art. Nor do you need to be a white male of European blood. Yes, it is a product of European culture, but so are computers planes, penicillin, and this essay. There are patrons of painting, and abstract Virtosu Art Gallery gallery of abstract oil painting painters, of all races and both sexes.

Many, if not most, young artists hoping to get up a rung on the art-world ladder don't care one whit about painting or its own tradition in history, today. The issue for them is much more identity than aesthetics, although many non-white artists really refer to their heritage in their art. The point is, most young musicians (whatever their race or sex) prefer to see history, especially art history, as a massive quantity of information that sometimes is useful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which largely is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

One premise: It is history, used that separates us from the lives of dogs, cats, and cows can be taken from him by us, if we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's image of our condition. But what, exactly, is the use of history? People today distrust it. Since they're convinced that understanding is a smokescreen for electricity, they want to know why and who is doing the telling.

Unfortunately it's only when the non-ironic use of visual history is coupled with the desire that is particular to produce images that the artist, in particular, can learn the visual language of abstract painting's meaning and painted images. No matter what, some people -- even some artists -- will never"get" abstract painting, for reasons that vary in their belief that all art is political for their poor visual aptitude. In the end, abstract painting will attract an audience more likely than to see Sarah McLachlan on MTV to read the Aeneid.

But small as its audience could be painting can say something. Abstract painters don't start their paintings in a vacuum. Rather, they build on the foundation of abstraction. Paintings are the result of an accumulation of wrong turns, mistakes, corrections, and resolutions. Abstract painters paint the way we lead our lives -- rebelling against the givens and the options, the actions that are purposeful and the injuries and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every guy at 50 has the face he deserves. In space and time, there's absolutely not any 50-year-old face. Everything is a toggle option that wipes out the previous smiles or frowns and obliterates"bad" or"wrong" choices. Since all evidence of it is concurrently destroyable and retrievable in a computer image, of course, there exists the concept of a mistake. The image does not have any wrinkles when we take away the ability to make a error in art, one which can not be wiped out. It carries a thin, stiff veneer, such as the continuously stretched faces of 65-year-old Park Avenue matrons. In a glance, those women look fine. But a look yields that are longer blankness. It is through our errors and, indeed, our sins, both in art and in life, we get the capacity for improvisation and redemption.

Before modernism, painting was the noise in the culture, since it attracted attention. Now, the culture is the noise, and painting -- notably abstract painting -- attracts little attention in the art world or in the culture at large. Today painting's saving virtue is that it provides us quiet, not sound. A cultural catastrophe is at the end of the 20th century: the continuous flux of everything, and the passing of stillness. Our culture cans not alter, but neither may installation art, computer art, nor new-media attempts at appropriation, no matter how savvy and smart they are. Those art forms that the media that is appropriate are doomed to look worse, or forever pale in comparison to them, to be squeezed down to their black hole that is vast. Abstract painting's power is this: it's a world superbly separate from our postmodern, materialistic ironic, age that is stylish.

Laurie Fendrich is an associate professor of fine arts at Hofstra University.

Read more…

DSC09786-Copy.jpg

DSC09873-Copy.jpg

C-1-2016-024-Alien-Copy.JPG

I have been an abstract painter for about 25 years, and have taught drawing and painting to undergraduates for almost as long.

From both perspectives, I've concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on contemporary culture, has been marginalized -- it is a wallflower at the postmodern art celebration.

Just take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the modern art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out from the Guggenheim Museum -- included not a single painter. In actuality, among non-painters, painters and many artists alike, it is quietly acknowledged that painting's impact on the culture is nil. Painting is viewed as an esoteric activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a part of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The public -- attached to television films, and computers -- barely registers painting as having anything relevant to say. The only question left is if there is any audience at all for painting and, if there is, how to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, painting's most difficult to understand and seemingly irrelevant sort that exists. By limiting my topic to abstract painting -- which concentrates on structure and builds an entire flat reality from color, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and changes -- I can best address the question of why anybody should continue to create paintings, when so many more visually powerful websites are available.

In safeguarding abstract painting, I need to first toss overboard some excess baggage. I take the iconoclastic abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who believed that the other Abstract Expressionists in the 1940s and'50s' claims amounted to poppycock. To give painting back its dignity, he set forth, both in his own paintings and in a collection of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting is not. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to set forth my list of what painting isn't:

First, abstract painting isn't a vehicle for social or political change, even if its pioneers thought it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if a figurative painter paints a picture that asserts a particular social or political point of view, its impact -- in a society flooded with books, magazines, papers, photos, movies, tv, video, and computers -- is ridiculously small. The chances are fewer with painting.

Second painting isn't avant-garde. It isn't anymore, although it was in 1915. In terms of its capacity to shock anybody -- the rallying cry of the avant-garde that is now-defunct -- painting today is weak in comparison to the ability of the media mentioned previously.

Abstract painting hasn't been, and most likely never will be, widely popular. Yes, its leaders -- Kandinsky, Malevich, Mondrian held utopian hopes for its appeal, but they were demonstrated poignantly wrong.

Abstract painting can't offer much of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in the way that religion or philosophy can. Put abstract painting cannot provide a substitute for God -- the loss of whom is the earmark of modernism. Indeed, the ability of abstract painting to move people at all is much weaker than that of other arts, such as books, theater, music, or poetry.

On the other hand to continue in a spirit than that of Reinhardt -- here's what abstract painting can do:

It offers what I'll call Little Hidden Meaning. To a viewer that can look at a still picture (for some, a difficult prospect), and who's knowledgeable enough to place an abstract painting in the context of contemporary art as a whole, abstract painting offers a de facto philosophical point of view on life. A mistaken belief is, coming from our own age, that abstraction is about self-expression and from our lingering attachment to Romanticism. In the broadest sense it's, of course, but it's also about ideas -- the complex struggle between order and chaos, by way of instance, or the way the flux of the natural world influences the rigor of geometry.

Secondly painting can empower us to be quiet. Painting makes allowing for a slow waltz.

Third art offers a counter to our society's glut of items. An abstract painting is a part of the material world, a thing, of course. But it reminds people of a planet without things. It suggests the old idea, now barely remembered, that there may be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's items can't affect.

Artists from the arrival of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- reality in perception, truth in shape, truth in substances. Many artists -- rightly -- are leery of the very idea of the gorgeous, because it so readily petrifies into some rigid standard. Once locked into place,"attractiveness" obliterates the wide selection of subtle variations inside. Additionally, politics surrounds beauty, making the topic difficult to talk directly: For many, notions of the beautiful are simply"cultural constructs," used by dominant cultures to suppress"the Other."

Most problematic of all, hidden within the notion of attractiveness and folded up are values that are conflicting. Beauty implies an inequality from the way things look. There's ugliness, and everything else in between, if there is beauty.

However, some people can not help their"elitist," or meritocratic, impulses when it comes to aesthetics, and are struck dumb by how utterly beautiful an abstract painting can be.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it is not a story, especially not one from the most easily accessible facet of culture, which is all tales. We are bombarded with endless tales -- in television shows, advertisements, novels, movies, and virtual-reality games. We are always teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading, by means of telling stories. Picking up on that facet of our culture, many non-abstract painters have inserted stories, or"narratives," in their paintings. But abstract painting resists narration and presents itself at once, as a whole or a oneness that can't, and never will, tell a story.

A virtue of abstract painting is its very uncamera-like nature. Before long, people will see the world only digitally.

It defies translation into data, information, entertainment, rational image, or any type of narrative. In the midst of a world where everything we see is morphing into something else, abstract painting is among the few things left that allow us to observe the possibility of something's remaining constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is accurate, then why is not there more interest in this art? It won't do to start listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with either figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with sound and video installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, but they're an aging lot, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of youthful and enthusiastic abstract painters. How can it be that abstract painting, a major player in most of 20th-century art, has arrived at this sorry point, where it is barely a contender?

The invention of photography allowed anyone, even someone who had no painting or drawing skills, to resolve a picture of the real world on a flat surface quickly and correctly. The painter suddenly seemed slow and insignificant in his method of replicating the look of reality.

More significant, photography threw into question the entire raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera was recording the world objectively through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, in contrast, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters couldn't compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would assert an alternative objective reality: All individual perceptions are true -- at least to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid.

It was a shift from effect, which depended on artifice -- that is, faking, telling lies -- to aesthetic intent, which depended on telling the truth, as being sincere known by artists.

But what -- in this kaleidoscope of individual"truths" -- would become of beauty? After Darwin and Freud, artists didn't concern themselves with beauty anymore, except as a byproduct, or an aside, since they played and manipulated with form. Philosophy tried to come forth with a solution. It would protect beauty by separating it from destructive scientific analysis, and leave it alone as a"subjective" judgment. Philosophy yielded its position to science as interpreter of the world. Science broke leaving everything behind, as abstract rubble, including philosophy that was poor. That rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's stuff -- the notion that aesthetic and moral judgments are subject to flux. Relativism had been around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the victory of the position.

The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the history of 20th-century artwork into one sentence: The past 80 years have consisted essentially of a battle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who have tried to rebuild classical philosophical truths in a modern visual language. It's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. And Duchamp is the winner -- although forfeit than by knockout.

It took Duchamp some time to win. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it'd been coasting on its inflated standing; at that point, Pop Art sprouted in the smart, witty seed which Duchamp had implanted a half-century earlier. Pop Art consisted mainly of paintings on canvas to be certain. But they were self-destructive. Painting had always been profoundly centered on the artist's signature, but painting worried picture or the content.

Since World War II, our civilization has steadily evolved into what we recognize as"mass culture" -- one in which millions of people's interests are concurrently and gratified through popular music, movies, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care no more about the strange, slow abstract oil painting gallery virtosuart.com action called painting. Starting in early'70s and the late'60s artists, drawn to installation, performance, and video art's art forms, abandoned painting. They had grown up with TV and rock'n' roll; they were stylish, smart, and sharp; they understood and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We have arrived at a division in the art world: hip and trendy on the 1 hand, reclusive and out-of-it on the other. How do continue in the face of that?

They must separate themselves rather than try to become players. Abstract painters need to become, philosophically speaking, difficult and cantankerous, because to survive, they have to reassert the distinction -- discredited by postmodernists -- between"high" art and"low" art. They have to reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional viewer. Artists are currently creating paintings that cannot be understood by everybody. They need to admit this to find meaning in abstract painting takes some work, and even some help.

And abstract painters need to observe loudly, rather than apologize for, the artwork's nature. The revolution itself -- the early-modern moment that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying, but that moment is over. For their viewers and contemporary painters, the experience is profoundly different from what it was due to their forebears. Art is a pleasure as opposed to a dizzying thrill. The conventions are created, just as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its fundamental rules rather than deconstructing them.

Yes art is elitist, and abstract artists must be up-front about that. However, like and you don't have to stop loving The X-Files or the fights to understand art. Nor do you have to be a white male of royal blood. Yes, it is a product of culture, but are computers, planes, penicillin, and this essay. There are painters, and patrons of painting, of both genders and all races.

Today, many, if not most artists trying to get up a rung on the art-world ladder don't care one whit about painting or its own heritage in history. The issue for them is much more identity than aesthetics, although many young artists refer to their racial heritage in their artwork. The point is, most young artists (whatever their race or gender ) prefer to view history, especially art history, as a enormous amount of information that at times is helpful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which mostly is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

One premise: It's history, used correctly, that divides us can be taken from him by us, if we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's picture of our condition. But what is the right use of history? People today distrust it. They wish to know who's doing the telling and why, because they are convinced that understanding is a smokescreen for power.

Unfortunately it's only when visual history's non-ironic use is coupled with the desire that is specific to produce images that the young artist, in particular, can learn the language of images and the meaning of painting. Regardless of what, some people -- even some artists -- will not"get" abstract painting, for reasons that vary in their belief that all art is political for their inferior visual aptitude. In the long run, abstract painting will attract an audience more likely to read the Aeneid in Latin than to watch Sarah McLachlan on MTV.

But small because its audience may be, abstract painting can say something. Their paintings aren't started by abstract painters . They build on the foundation of abstraction that is historical. Paintings are caused by an accumulation of wrong turns, errors, corrections, and settlements. Painters paint the way all of us lead our lives -- rebelling against the choices and the givens, the purposeful actions and the accidents and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect visual metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every guy at 50 has. In virtual space and time, there is not any 50-year-old face. Everything is a toggle option that wipes out the previous smiles or frowns and obliterates"bad" or"wrong" choices. In a computer image, of course, there exists the notion of a mistake, since all evidence of it is simultaneously retrievable and destroyable. The image does not have any wrinkles when we remove the ability to make a real error in art, one that can't be wiped out. It carries only a veneer, such as the continuously stretched faces of Park Avenue matrons. At a glance, those women look quite nice. But a longer appearance yields blankness. It is through our sins, our errors and, indeed, both in life and in art, that we gain the capacity for improvisation and redemption.

Since attention was attracted by it, painting was the sound in the culture. The culture is the sound, and painting -- notably painting -- attracts little attention, either in the art world or in the culture at large. Abstract painting's saving virtue is that it offers us silent, not noise. There is indeed a cultural crisis at the end of the 20th century: the continuous flux of everything, and the death of stillness. Abstract painting cannot alter our culture, but neither may setup art nor new-media attempts at appropriation, no matter how informed and smart they are. Those art forms that the popular media that is appropriate are doomed to look forever pale compared to them, or worse, to be squeezed down to their enormous hole. The power of abstract painting is this: It is a world beautifully separate from our postmodern, materialistic, morphing, ironic, age that is stylish.

Read more…

DSC09811-Copy.jpg

DSC09928-Copy.jpg

C1-2017-006.jpg

I have been an abstract painter for about 25 years, and have taught painting and drawing to undergraduates for almost as long.

From both perspectives, I've concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on modern culture, continues to be marginalized -- it is a wallflower at the postmodern art party.

Just take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the contemporary art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out by the Guggenheim Museum -- included not one painter. In fact, among painters, many artists and non-painters alike, it is quietly acknowledged that the effect on the culture of painting is nil. Painting is seen as, at best, an activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a portion of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The public -- attached to movies, television, and computers -- barely registers painting . The only question left is if there's any audience at all for painting and, even if there is, the way to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, painting's irrelevant and most difficult to understand kind that exists. By limiting my topic to abstract painting -- which focuses on structure and builds a whole flat reality from color, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and changes -- I can best deal with the question of why anybody should continue to make paintings, when so many more visually powerful websites are available.

In safeguarding abstract painting, I need to first toss overboard some excess baggage. I take as my model the iconoclastic abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who thought that the claims of the other Abstract Expressionists in'50s and the 1940s abstract art painting gallery virtosuart.com amounted to poppycock. To provide painting back its dignity, he set forth, both in his own paintings and in a collection of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting isn't. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to set my list of what painting isn't forth:

First, abstract painting is not a vehicle for political or social change, even though its pioneers thought it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if a figurative painter paints a picture that argues a particular social or political point of view, its effect -- in a society flooded with books, magazines, papers, photos, movies, tv, video, and computers -- is ridiculously tiny. The possibilities are even fewer with abstract painting.

Second, abstract painting isn't avant-garde. It was in 1915, but it is. With regard to its capacity to shock anybody -- the rallying cry of the now-defunct avant-garde -- painting today is feeble when compared with the power of the media.

Third painting hasn't been, and likely never will be, broadly popular. Yes, its pioneers -- Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian held utopian hopes for its appeal, but they were proved poignantly wrong.

Abstract painting can't offer you a lot of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in the way that religion or philosophy can. Put bluntly, abstract painting cannot provide a replacement for God -- the reduction of whom is the earmark of modernism. The ability of painting to move people at all is much weaker than that of other arts, such as theater, music, novels, or poetry.

To keep in a soul than that of Reinhardt -- here is what abstract painting can do:

It provides what I'll call Small Hidden Meaning. To a viewer who can look at a still picture (for some, a difficult prospect), and who's knowledgeable enough to put an abstract painting in the context of contemporary art as a whole, abstract painting offers a de facto philosophical point of view on life. A mistaken belief is, coming from our lingering attachment and out of our own narcissistic age, that abstraction is about self-expression. In the broadest sense it's, of course, but it's also about ideas -- that the complex battle between order and chaos, by way of instance, or the way the flux of the organic world influences the rigor of geometry.

Secondly painting can empower us to be silent. From the 1989 French movie The Little Thief, a character attracted a roomful of people dancing wildly to stone'n' roll to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Abstract painting makes for a room in the arts, allowing for a slow waltz.

Third, abstract art provides a counter to our society's glut of things. An abstract painting is a thing, of course, a part of the material world. But it reminds people of a world without things. It suggests the old idea, now hardly remembered, that there may be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's things can not affect.

Fourth, abstract painting can be quite simply, beautiful -- although that assertion is subject to tremendous dispute. Artists from the arrival of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- reality in perception, truth in form, truth in substances. Many artists -- rightly -- are leery of the very idea of this gorgeous, as it so readily petrifies into some rigid standard. Once locked into place,"beauty" obliterates the wide array of subtle variations within it. Additionally, politics encircles beauty, making the topic difficult to talk directly: For many, notions of the beautiful are simply"cultural constructs," used by dominant cultures to suppress"the Other."

Most problematic of all, hidden within the notion of beauty and folded up are values. Beauty implies an inequality in how things look. There is everything in between, and ugliness, if there is beauty.

However, some people can not help their"elitist," or meritocratic, impulses when it comes to aesthetics, and are struck dumb by how utterly beautiful an abstract painting can be.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it's not a story, especially none from the most readily accessible side of culture, which is all stories. We're bombarded by endless stories -- in television shows, advertisements, novels, movies, and virtual-reality games. By way of telling stories we are constantly teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading. Picking up on that facet of our culture, many non-abstract painters have added stories, or"narratives," into their paintings.

A virtue of painting is its very uncamera-like nature.

What abstract painting provides us in the end of the 20th century is, in sum, a useless non-story, a non-blinking"thereness," with reference to anything other than itself and its own heritage. It defies translation into information, information, entertainment, rational image, or any kind of narrative. It presents an ineffable balance of sensation, experience, and knowledge. In the middle of a world in which everything we see is morphing into something different, abstract painting is one of the few things left that enable us to see the prospect of something's remaining constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is true, then why isn't there more interest in this artwork? It won't do to start listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with either figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with sound and video installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, however they're an aging bunch, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of youthful and enthusiastic abstract painters. How is it that abstract painting, a significant participant in most of 20th-century art, has arrived at this sorry point, where it's barely a contender?

And how is it that painting in general, not just abstract painting, has arrived at this point?

I suggest that the answer is rooted in two irrevocable changes that took place in the 19th century: First, the invention of photography, in 1839, and second, the general upheaval in philosophy. The invention of photography allowed anybody, even someone who had no painting or drawing skills, to fix a picture of the real world on a flat surface quickly and accurately. The painter suddenly seemed slow and insignificant in his way of replicating the look of reality.

More significant, photography threw into question the entire raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera was recording the world objectively through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, in contrast, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters could not compete with the camera in mimicking fact, they would assert an alternative objective truth: All individual perceptions are true -- at least to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid. Impressionist artists in the 1870s and 1880s, for all their stylistic differences, shared the conviction that it was the individual artist's vision that was objectively true.

Telling the truth about human perception (Impressionism) quickly broadened to become telling the facts about individual feelings (Expressionism), reaffirming the fact that a major shift had occurred. It was a change from aesthetic impact, which relied on artifice -- which is, faking, telling to aesthetic intent, which relied on telling the truth, known by artists as being sincere.

Artists did not concern themselves with beauty , except as a byproduct, or an aside, as they manipulated and played with form. Philosophy yielded its position as objective interpreter of the world. Science subsequently broke leaving everything else behind, as abstract rubble, including poor doctrine. This rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's stuff -- the notion that moral and aesthetic judgments are subject to flux. Relativism had been around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the victory of the position.

The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the history of 20th-century art into a single sentence: The past 80 years have consisted essentially of a struggle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who have tried to rebuild classical philosophical truths in a contemporary visual language. It's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. Although sacrifice -- and Duchamp is the winner.

It required Duchamp a while to win -- until the 1960s. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it had been coasting on its inflated reputation; at that point, Pop Art sprouted from the smart, witty seed that Duchamp had implanted a half-century earlier. Pop Art consisted of paintings on canvas, to be sure. However, they were self-destructive. Pop Art's implied message was that it was the appropriated images that counted -- the Campbell's soup cans, Marilyn Monroe -- rather than the way in which paint was put on the canvas. Painting had always been profoundly centered on the artist's signature, but now painting concerned picture or the content.

Since World War II, our civilization has steadily evolved into what we recognize as"mass culture" -- one where millions of people's interests are simultaneously and gratified through popular music, movies, sports, and actors. Fewer and fewer people care about the strange activity called painting. Beginning in early'70s and the late'60s , young musicians, drawn to the art forms of installation, performance, and video art, abandoned painting in droves. They had grown up with TV and stone'n' roster; they were hip, smart, and eloquent; they understood and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We reclusive and out-of-it and trendy on the 1 hand, have arrived at a branch in the art world: hip on the other. How can continue in the face of that?

They must aggressively separate themselves rather than try to become bit players. Abstract painters need to become, philosophically speaking, difficult and cantankerous, because to survive, they must reassert the distinction -- discredited by postmodernists -- between"high" art and"low" art. They must reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional viewer. Abstract artists are currently making paintings that can't be understood by everybody. They need to admit that to find meaning in abstract painting requires some work, and even some aid.

And abstract painters ought to celebrate loudly, rather than apologize for, their artwork's convention-bound nature. These artists work within a rectangle, they use paint on canvas, and they follow a century of traditions of abstract painting. That moment is forever over, although the revolution itself -- the early-modern second that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying. For their audiences and contemporary abstract painters, the experience is different from what it was due to their forebears. Abstract art is a pleasure rather than a thrill. The conventions are established, just as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its rules rather than always deconstructing them.

Yes art is elitist, and artists that are abstract must be up-front about that. However, like and you don't have to stop loving the struggles or The X-Files to understand abstract art. Nor do you need to be a white male of European blood. Yes, it's a product of culture, but are computers, airplanes, penicillin, and this essay. There are patrons of abstract painting, and painters, of both genders and all races.

Today, many, if not most, young artists trying to get a rung up don't care one whit about painting or its heritage in history. The issue for them is identity than aesthetics, although young, non-white artists indeed refer to their racial heritage in their artwork. The point is, most young artists (whatever their race or gender ) prefer to see history, especially art history, as a massive quantity of information that sometimes is useful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which largely is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

If we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's picture of our modern condition, we could take from him one premise: It's history, used that divides us from the lives of dogs, cats, and cows. But what is the right use of history? People today distrust it. Because they are convinced that understanding is a smokescreen for power they want to know why and who's doing the telling.

Unfortunately it's only when history's non-ironic use is coupled with the desire that is specific to produce images that the young artist, in particular, can learn the visual language of the meaning of abstract painting and painted images. No matter what, some people -- even some artists -- will never"get" abstract painting, for reasons that vary in their belief that all art is political to their inferior visual aptitude. In the end painting will attract an audience more likely than to watch Sarah McLachlan on MTV to read the Aeneid.

But small because its audience could be, abstract painting can, indeed, say something about contemporary culture. As a colleague of mine from Hofstra University, the late Michael Gordon (himself a painter), often argued, it sets up a strong moral parallel to the manner in which we lead our lives. Abstract painters don't begin their paintings . Instead, they build on the foundation of abstraction. Paintings are the result of an accumulation of wrong turns, mistakes, corrections, and resolutions. Painters paint the way rebelling against the givens and the choices, the purposeful actions and the injuries and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect visual metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every guy at 50 has. In space and time, there's absolutely no 50-year-old face. Everything is a toggle choice that wipes out the previous smiles or frowns and obliterates"bad" or"wrong" choices. In a computer picture, of course, there no longer exists the concept of a mistake, since all evidence of it is simultaneously retrievable and destroyable. The image has no wrinkles, when we remove the ability to make a error in art, one which can't be wiped out. It carries only a veneer, such as the continuously stretched faces of 65-year-old Park Avenue matrons. In a glance, those women look quite fine. But a appearance yields blankness. It's through our sins our errors and, indeed, both in art and in life, that we get the capacity for improvisation and redemption that is possible.

Since attention was attracted by it before modernism, painting was the noise in the culture. Now, the culture is the sound, and painting -- notably painting -- attracts little attention, either in the culture at large or in the art world. The saving virtue of abstract painting is that it provides us silent, not noise today. There's indeed a crisis at the end of the 20th century: the continuous level of everything, and the death of stillness. Painting cannot change our culture, but neither can setup art, computer art, nor new-media attempts at appropriation, no matter how smart and savvy they are. Those art forms that appropriate the media are doomed to look worse, or pale compared to them, to be sucked down into their vast hole. The ability of painting is this: it's a world beautifully from our materialistic ironic, stylish age.

Laurie Fendrich is an associate professor of fine arts at Hofstra University.

Read more…

DSC09928-Copy.jpg

C1-2017-006.jpg

C-1-2016-007---Christopher-Columbus-Copy.JPG

I have taught drawing and painting to undergraduates for nearly as long, and have been an abstract painter for around 25 years.

From both perspectives, I've concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on contemporary culture, continues to be marginalized.

Just take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the contemporary art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out by the Guggenheim Museum -- included not a single painter. In fact, among non-painters, painters and many artists alike, it's quietly acknowledged that the effect on the culture of painting is nil. Painting is viewed as an activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a part of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The public -- attached to television films, and computers registers painting as having anything relevant to say. The only question is whether there is any audience at all for painting and, even if there is to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, the hardest to comprehend and irrelevant sort of painting that exists. By restricting my subject to abstract painting -- that focuses on structure and builds an entire flat reality from colour, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and adjustments -- I can best deal with the question of why anyone should continue to make paintings, when so many more visually powerful media are available.

In defending abstract painting, I need to first toss overboard some excess baggage. I take as my model the iconoclastic abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who thought that the claims of the Abstract Expressionists in'50s and the 1940s amounted to poppycock. To provide painting back its dignity, he put forth, both in his own paintings and in a series of"dogmatic" statements, what abstract painting is not. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to set forth of what abstract painting is not my list:

Abstract painting is not a vehicle for social or political change, even though its leaders believed it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if even a figurative painter paints a picture that asserts a particular social or political perspective, its effect -- in a society bombarded with books, magazines, papers, photographs, movies, tv, video, and computers -- is ridiculously tiny. The chances are even fewer with painting.

Abstract painting isn't avant-garde. It is, although it was in 1915. With regard to its capacity to shock anyone -- the rallying cry of the now-defunct avant-garde -- painting now is weak when compared with the power of the media mentioned previously.

Abstract painting hasn't been, and likely never will be popular. Yes, its leaders -- Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian held utopian hopes for its appeal, but they were demonstrated poignantly .

Finally painting cannot offer you a lot of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in how religion or philosophy can. Put bluntly painting can't provide a substitute for God -- the reduction of whom is the earmark of modernism. The ability of painting to move people at all is considerably weaker than that of other arts, such as theater, music, books, or poetry.

On the other hand -- to keep at a more moderate, but no less passionate spirit than that of Reinhardt -- here's what abstract painting could do:

First, it offers what I'll call Little Hidden Meaning. To a viewer who can look at a still picture (for some, a difficult prospect), and who's educated enough to place an abstract painting in the context of modern art as a whole, abstract painting provides a de facto philosophical viewpoint on life. There is a mistaken belief, coming from our own age, that abstraction is about self-expression and out of our lingering attachment to Romanticism. In the broadest sense it is, of course, but it's also about ideas -- the intricate struggle between order and chaos, for instance, or the way the flux of the natural world modifies the rigor of geometry.

Secondly, abstract painting can empower us to be quiet. From the 1989 French film The Little Thief, a character brought a roomful of people dancing wildly to rock'n' roster to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Abstract painting makes for a room in the arts, allowing for a slow waltz.

Third art provides a counter to our society's glut of things. An abstract painting is a thing, of course, part of the material world. However, it reminds people of a planet. It suggests the old idea, now barely remembered, that there might be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's things can not affect.

Artists from the birth of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- truth in understanding, truth in form, truth in materials. Many artists -- rightly -- are suspicious of the very idea of this gorgeous, because it so readily petrifies into a rigid standard. Once locked into place,"beauty" obliterates the wide array of subtle variations within it. In addition, politics encircles beauty, making the topic difficult to talk directly: For many, notions of the beautiful are simply"cultural constructs," used by dominant cultures to suppress"the Other."

Most problematic of all, hidden within the notion of attractiveness and folded up are values. Beauty implies an inequality from how things look. If there is beauty, there's ugliness, and everything else in between.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it is not a story, especially none from the most easily accessible side of civilization, which is all tales. We're bombarded with endless stories -- in television shows, advertisements, books, movies, and virtual-reality games. We're always teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading, by means of telling stories. Picking up on that aspect of our culture, many non-abstract painters have inserted stories, or"narratives," into their paintings. But abstract painting resists narration and presents itself all at once, as a whole or a oneness that can't, and never will, tell a story.

A virtue of painting is its very uncamera-like, uncomputer-like nature.

It defies translation into information, information, entertainment, rational image, or any kind of narrative. It presents an ineffable balance of sensation, experience, and knowledge. In the middle of a world in which everything we see is morphing into something else, abstract painting is among the few things left that enable us to see the prospect of something's staying constant.

If what I'm saying about the virtues of abstract painting is true, then why isn't there more interest in this artwork? It won't do to start listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with sound and video installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, but they're an aging bunch, for the most part ignored. More worrisome is the seeming absence of a new generation of young and enthusiastic abstract painters. How can it be that abstract painting, a significant player in most of 20th-century art, has arrived at this sorry point, where it's barely a contender?

I suggest the answer is rooted in two irrevocable changes that happened in the 19th century: First, the invention of photography, in 1839, and second, the general upheaval in philosophy. The invention of photography enabled anyone, even someone who had no painting or drawing skills, to resolve a picture of the real world on a level surface quickly and accurately. The painter suddenly seemed slow and insignificant in his method of replicating the look of reality.

More significant, photography threw into question the entire raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera was recording the world objectively through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, in contrast, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters couldn't compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would argue an alternative objective truth: All individual perceptions are accurate -- to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid. Impressionist artists in the 1870s and 1880s, for all their stylistic differences, shared the conviction that it was the individual artist's vision that was true.

Telling the truth about human perception (Impressionism) quickly broadened to become telling the truth about human feelings (Expressionism), reaffirming the fact that a significant shift had occurred. It was a change that is, faking, telling to aesthetic intent, which relied on telling the truth, as being sincere understood by artists.

But what -- in this kaleidoscope of individual"truths" -- would become of beauty? After Darwin and Freud, artists did not concern themselves with beauty anymore, except as a byproduct, or an aside, as they manipulated and played with form. Philosophy yielded its primary position as objective interpreter of the world to science. Science then broke loose, leaving everything else behind, including doctrine, as rubble that was abstract. This rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's substance -- the notion that moral and aesthetic judgments are subject to flux. Relativism was around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the success of the relativist position.

The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the history of 20th-century art into a single sentence: The past 80 years have consisted basically of a struggle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who have tried to reconstruct classical philosophical truths in a modern visual language. To put it differently, it's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. And Duchamp is the winner -- although sacrifice than by knockout.

It required Duchamp some time to win -- until the 1960s. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it had been coasting on its inflated standing; at there, Pop Art sprouted in the smart, witty seed which Duchamp had planted a half-century earlier. By simultaneously mocking and celebrating the modern culture of"stuff," Pop made the abstract painter's self-absorbed escape look both elitist and silly. Pop Art consisted of paintings on canvas to be certain. However, they were self-destructive. Pop Art's implied message was that it was the appropriated images that counted -- the Campbell's soup cans, Marilyn Monroe -- and not the way in which paint was put on the canvas. Painting had been centered on the artist's touch, but now painting worried the content or image.

Since World War II, our civilization has steadily evolved to what we identify as"mass culture" -- one in which millions of people's interests are simultaneously and gratified through popular music, films, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care any longer about the slow activity. Starting abstract art painting gallery in early'70s and the late'60s artists, attracted to the art forms of installation, performance, and video art, abandoned painting in droves. They had grown up with TV and rock'n' roll; they were stylish, smart, and eloquent; they knew and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We have arrived at a division in the art world: fashionable and trendy on the one hand, reclusive and out-of-it on the other. How can painters who need to have an effect on their culture remain at the face of that?

They have to aggressively separate themselves rather than strive to become players. They have to reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a viewer that is subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional. Abstract artists are making . They need to admit that to find meaning in abstract painting requires some work, and even some help.

And abstract painters need to celebrate loudly, rather than apologize for, the convention-bound character of their artwork. These artists work within a rectangle, they use paint on canvas, and they follow a century of developed traditions of painting. That moment is over, although the revolution itself -- the early-modern moment that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying. For abstract painters and their viewers, the experience is profoundly different from what it was due to their revolutionary forebears. Art is a quiet pleasure as opposed to a thrill. The conventions are created, as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its rules rather than always deconstructing them.

Yes art is elitist, and artists must be up-front about that. However, you don't need to stop loving The X-Files or the struggles to understand and enjoy abstract art. Nor do you need to be a white male of European royal blood. Yes, it's a product of European culture, but so are penicillin, computers, planes, and this essay. There are patrons of painting, and abstract painters, of both genders and all races.

Today, many, if not most, young artists trying to get a rung up on the art-world ladder don't care one whit about painting or its heritage in history. In actuality, aside from the fashion for finding one's"roots," they are not interested in seeing history as something to belong to, or to be a part of, or to carry forward. The problem for them is much more identity than aesthetics although many young artists refer to their racial heritage in their art. The point is, most young artists (whatever their race or gender ) prefer to view history, especially art history, as a enormous quantity of information that sometimes is useful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which largely is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

One viable premise: It's history, used correctly can be taken from him by us, if we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's picture of our modern condition. But what is the right use of history? People today distrust it. They wish to know and who is doing the telling, since they're convinced that knowledge is a smokescreen for power.

Unfortunately it is only when the non-ironic use of history is coupled with the desire to produce images that the artist, in particular, can learn the language of the meaning of abstract painting and painted abstract images. Regardless of what, some people -- even some artists -- will not"get" abstract painting, for reasons that range in their belief that all art is political to their inferior visual aptitude. In the end painting will attract an audience more likely than to watch Sarah McLachlan on MTV, to read the Aeneid in Latin.

But small because its audience could be painting can say something about contemporary culture. As a colleague of mine from Hofstra University, the late Michael Gordon (himself a painter), often contended, it sets up a strong moral parallel to the way in which we lead our lives. Painters do not begin their paintings . They build on the foundation of abstraction. Individual paintings are caused by an accumulation of wrong turns mistakes, corrections, and settlements. Abstract painters paint the way all of us lead our lives -- building on and rebelling against the givens and the choices, the purposeful actions and the injuries. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every guy at 50 has. In space and virtual time, there's absolutely not any 50-year-old face. In a computer image, of course, there no longer exists even the concept of a mistake, because all evidence of it is destroyable and retrievable. The last image has no wrinkles, when we take away the ability to make a error in art, one which can't be wiped out. It carries only a veneer, like the continuously lifted, stretched faces of Park Avenue matrons. In a glance, those women look quite nice. But a longer look yields blankness. It is through our sins our mistakes and, indeed, both in art and in life, we get the capacity for redemption and improvisation.

Painting was the noise in the culture, because it attracted attention. Now, the culture is the sound, and painting -- notably abstract painting -- attracts little attention, either in the art world or in the culture at large. Abstract painting's saving virtue is that it offers us quiet, not noise today. There's indeed the continuous flux of everything a catastrophe at the end of the century, and the passing of stillness. Painting can not alter our culture, but neither can setup art nor attempts at appropriation, no matter how informed and smart they are. Those art forms that the popular media that is appropriate are doomed to look worse, or pale compared to them, to be squeezed down to their black hole. The power of abstract painting is this: It is a world beautifully separate from our postmodern, materialistic, morphing, ironic, hip age.

Laurie Fendrich is an associate professor of fine arts at Hofstra University.

Read more…

C-1-2016-020----Da-Vinci-Copy.JPG

DSC09838-Copy.jpg

C-1-2015-014-ABBA.JPG

I have been an abstract painter for about 25 years, and have taught painting and drawing to undergraduates for almost as long.

From both perspectives, I've concluded that painting, in terms of its influence on modern culture, has been marginalized -- it is a wallflower at the postmodern art party.

Just take a prominent example of painting's situation as we approach the 21st century: The lists of last year's finalists for the modern art world's two Oscar-like awards -- the Turner Prize, in Britain, and the Hugo Boss Prize, handed out from the Guggenheim Museum -- included not a single painter. In fact, among many artists, painters and non-painters alike, it is quietly acknowledged that the effect on the culture of painting is nil. Painting is viewed as, at best, an esoteric activity for a few diehards. At worst, it's considered destructively elitist, a portion of the"oppressor culture" of dead white European men. The general public -- attached to television, films, and computers -- barely registers painting as having anything relevant to say. The only question is whether there is any audience at all for painting and, if there is to preserve it.

This essay is a defense of abstract painting, the seemingly irrelevant and most difficult to comprehend kind of painting that exists. By restricting my topic to abstract painting -- that focuses on structure and builds a whole flat reality from color, surface, shape, traces of the hand, mistakes, and changes -- I can best deal with the question of why anybody should continue to create paintings, when so many more visually powerful media are available.

In defending abstract painting, I must toss overboard some extra baggage. I take the abstract painter Ad Reinhardt, who believed that the other Abstract Expressionists in the 1940s and'50s' claims amounted to poppycock. To give painting back its dignity, he set forth, both in his own paintings and in a collection of"dogmatic" statements, exactly what abstract painting is not. Allow me, in the spirit of Ad Reinhardt, to put forth of what abstract painting is not my own list:

Abstract painting isn't a vehicle for social or political change, even though its leaders believed it was. Today, even more than in Reinhardt's day, if even a figurative painter paints a picture that argues a specific social or political point of view, its effect -- in a society bombarded with books, magazines, papers, photographs, movies, tv, video, and computers -- is ridiculously tiny. The possibilities are fewer with abstract painting.

Second, abstract painting isn't avant-garde. It was in 1915, but it is. With regard to its ability to shock anyone -- the rallying cry of the now-defunct avant-garde -- painting today is feeble in comparison to the power of the media.

Abstract painting has never been, and most likely never will be popular. Yes, its leaders -- Malevich, Kandinsky, Mondrian -- all held utopian hopes for its appeal, but they have been proved wrong. Abstract painting turned out to be too subtle, too self-referential, too slow, too demanding of the viewer's patience, and too easy to poke fun at ever to attract a mass audience.

Finally, abstract painting can't offer you much of what we call Deep Hidden Meaning, in how philosophy or religion can. Put abstract painting cannot provide a replacement for God -- of whom is the earmark of modernism, the loss. Indeed, the ability of painting to move people at all is considerably weaker than that of other arts, such as poetry, theater, books, or music.

To keep in a more moderate, but no less passionate spirit than that of Reinhardt -- here is what painting could do:

First, it offers what I'll call Little Hidden Meaning. To a viewer that can look at a still image (for some, a tricky prospect), and who's educated enough to put an abstract painting in the context of contemporary art as a whole, abstract painting provides a de facto philosophical viewpoint on life. A mistaken notion is, coming from our attachment to Romanticism and from our own age, that abstraction is about self-expression. In the broadest sense it's, of course, but it's also about ideas -- the intricate battle between order and chaos, for instance, or the way the flux of the organic world influences the rigor of geometry.

Second, abstract painting can empower us to be silent. From the 1989 French movie The Little Thief, a character brought a roomful of people dancing wildly to stone'n' roster to a standstill by bellowing at them to be quiet so that he and his wife could dance a slow waltz. Painting makes for a room in the arts, allowing for a slow waltz.

Third, abstract art offers a counter to our society's glut of things. An abstract painting is itself a thing, of course. However, it reminds people of a world without things. It suggests the old concept, now barely remembered, that there might be a hidden, underlying order, which the transience of life's things can't affect.

Artists from the arrival of modernism on have substituted the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of beauty -- truth in understanding, truth in form, truth in materials. Many artists -- rightly -- are suspicious of the very idea of the gorgeous, as it so readily petrifies into a rigid standard. Once locked into place,"attractiveness" obliterates the wide selection of subtle variations inside.

Most baffling of all, hidden within the notion of attractiveness and folded up are values. Beauty implies an inequality from the way things look. If there's beauty, there's ugliness, and everything in between. That kind of ranking offends our democratic sense of justice, because we moderns have defined justice as that which most closely approximates equality.

But some people can't help their"elitist," or meritocratic, impulses when it comes to aesthetics, and are struck dumb by how utterly amazing an abstract painting can be.

A fifth virtue of abstract painting is that it is not a story, particularly not one from the most easily accessible side of culture, which is all stories. We're bombarded by endless stories -- in television shows, advertisements, novels, movies, and virtual-reality games. By way of telling stories We're constantly teaching and preaching, persuading and dissuading. Picking up on that facet of our culture, many non-abstract painters have added stories, or"narratives," into their paintings.

A last virtue of painting is its very uncamera-like, uncomputer-like nature.

What abstract painting offers us in the end of the 20th century is, in sum, a useless non-story, a non-blinking"thereness," without reference to anything other than itself and its own tradition. It defies translation to information, information, entertainment, rational image, or any kind of narrative. It presents an ineffable equilibrium of sensation, experience, and knowledge. In the middle of a world in which everything we see is morphing into something different, abstract painting is one of the few things left that enable us to observe the prospect of something's remaining constant.

If what I am saying about the virtues of abstract painting is accurate, then why isn't there more interest in this art? It will not do to start listing all of the abstract painters around, since the point is that few people pay much attention to them, compared with figurative artists in general, or new-media artists working with sound and video installations. Yes, abstract painters still exist, but they're an aging lot, for the most part ignored. How is it that abstract painting, a major player in most of 20th-century art, has arrived at this sorry point, where it's barely a contender?

I suggest the answer is rooted in two irrevocable changes that took place in the 19th century: First, the invention of photography, in 1839, and second, the general upheaval in philosophy. The invention of photography allowed anyone, even someone who had no drawing or painting skills, to fix an image of the real world onto a level surface quickly and accurately. The painter suddenly seemed irrelevant and slow in his method of replicating the appearance of reality.

More important, photography threw into question the entire raison d'etre of painting. For if the camera was recording the world through light rays bouncing off objects, then painting, in contrast, looked subjective, even fictive. If painters could not compete with the camera in mimicking reality, they would argue an alternative objective truth: All individual perceptions are accurate -- to the perceiver -- and therefore equally valid.

Telling the truth about individual perception (Impressionism) quickly broadened to become telling the truth about human feelings (Expressionism), reaffirming the fact that a major shift had occurred. It was a shift from aesthetic impact, which relied on artifice -- which is, faking, telling lies -- to aesthetic intent, which relied on telling the truth, known by artists as being true.

But what -- in this kaleidoscope of individual"truths" -- would become of beauty? After Freud and Darwin, artists did not concern themselves with beauty anymore, except as an aside, or a byproduct, as they manipulated and played with form. It would protect beauty by separating it from destructive scientific analysis, and leave it alone as a"subjective" judgment. Philosophy yielded its primary position to science as interpreter of the world. Science broke leaving everything else behind, including philosophy that was poor, as subjective rubble. This rubble reconstituted itself as relativism's substance -- the notion that moral and aesthetic judgments are subject to continual flux. Relativism had been around at least since Plato, of course, but the age marked the victory of the position.

The relativist reply to any pretension to universal truth, beauty, or power is, in effect,"Oh, yeah?" The hatchet man of relativism is irony. To condense an awful lot of the background of 20th-century artwork into a single sentence: The past 80 years have consisted basically of a battle between the ironists, who have reveled in the impossibility of universal truths, and the holdout universalists, who've tried to reconstruct classical philosophical truths in a modern visual language. In other words, it's been Duchamp versus Mondrian. And Duchamp is the winner -- although more by forfeit.

It took Duchamp some time to win -- until the 1960s. Until then, when Pop Art burst Abstract Expressionism's bubble, it'd been coasting on its inflated reputation; at there, Pop Art sprouted from the smart, witty seed that Duchamp had planted a half-century earlier. Pop Art consisted of paintings on canvas, to be certain. But they were self-destructive. Pop Art's implied message was that it was the appropriated images that counted -- the Campbell's soup cans, Marilyn Monroe -- rather than the way in which paint was put on the canvas. Painting had been profoundly centered on the artist's touch, but now painting worried picture or the content.

Since World War II, our culture has steadily evolved to what we identify as"mass culture" -- one in which millions of people's interests are concurrently and speedily gratified through popular music, movies, sports, and celebrities. Fewer and fewer people care about the strange, slow action called painting. Beginning in early'70s and the late'60s artists, attracted to the art forms of installation, performance, and video art, abandoned painting. They'd grown up with TV and stone'n' roll; they were hip, smart, and eloquent; they understood and embraced the seductiveness and power of popular culture, and they wanted in on it.

We have arrived at a branch in the art world: fashionable and trendy on the one hand, reclusive and out-of-it on the other. How can painters who need to have an effect on their culture continue in the face of that?

They have to distinguish themselves rather than try to be bit players. They have to reargue the case for art -- an art requiring a subtle, sensitive, experienced, and even exceptional viewer. Abstract artists are creating paintings that can't be understood by everybody. They need to admit that to find meaning in abstract painting requires some work, and even some aid.

And painters ought to observe loudly, rather than apologize for, the convention-bound nature of their art. The revolution itself -- the moment that invented abstraction -- must have been electrifying, but that moment is over. For abstract painters and their audiences, the experience is profoundly different from what it had been for their revolutionary forebears. Abstract art is a quiet pleasure rather than a dizzying thrill. The conventions are established, as in baseball, and to derive pleasure from abstraction requires accepting its fundamental rules rather than always deconstructing them.

Yes, abstract art is elitist, and artists that are abstract must be upfront about that. However, you don't have to stop loving the fights or The X-Files to understand and like art. Nor do you need to be a white male of European royal blood. Yes, it is a product of European culture, but are penicillin, computers, planes, and this essay. There are abstract painters, and patrons of abstract painting, of all races and both genders.

Today, many, if not most artists hoping to get a rung up don't care one whit about painting or its tradition in Western history. In actuality, aside from the fashion for finding one's"roots," that they aren't interested in seeing history as something to belong to, or to be a part of, or to proceed. The problem for them is identity than aesthetics, although a lot of young, non-white artists indeed refer to their own racial heritage in their artwork. The point is, most young musicians (whatever their race or sex) prefer to see history, especially art history, as a massive quantity of information that sometimes is helpful for rummaging around in for ironic references, but which mostly is a pain in the neck and best left ignored.

One premise: It's history, used that divides us from the lives of dogs, cats, and cows can be taken from him by us, if we pull back from the abyss of Nietzsche's image of our condition. But what, exactly, is the use of history? People now emphasise it. Because they are convinced that knowledge is a smokescreen for power they want to know why and who is doing the telling.

Unfortunately it's only when visual history's true, non-ironic use is coupled with the desire that is specific to make images that the young artist, in particular, can learn the language of abstract painting's meaning and painted abstract graphics. No matter what, some people -- even some artists -- will never"get" abstract painting, for reasons that vary in their belief that all art is political for their poor visual aptitude. In the long run painting will attract an audience more likely to read the Aeneid than to see Sarah McLachlan on MTV.

But small because its audience may be, abstract painting can say something about modern culture. Their paintings aren't started by painters . Rather, they build on the foundation of historical abstraction. Paintings are caused by an accumulation of wrong turns, mistakes, corrections, and resolutions. Painters paint Check out this site the way we lead our lives -- rebelling against the choices and the givens, the actions that are purposeful and the injuries and building on. An abstract painting, then, offers the perfect metaphor for life.

George Orwell said that each and every man at 50 has. In space and virtual time, there is not any 50-year-old face. Everything is a toggle choice that wipes out the previous smiles or frowns and obliterates"bad" or"wrong" choices. In a computer picture, of course, there no longer exists even the concept of a mistake, because all evidence of it is destroyable and retrievable. The last image has no wrinkles when we take away the ability to make a mistake in art, one which can't be wiped out. It carries only a thin, stiff veneer, like the continuously stretched faces of 65-year-old Park Avenue matrons. At a glance, those ladies look fine. But a look yields blankness. It is through our sins, our mistakes and, indeed, both in art and in life, that we get the capacity for improvisation and redemption that is possible.

Because it attracted attention, before modernism, painting was the noise in the culture. The culture is the sound, and painting -- especially painting -- attracts attention, either in the art world or in the culture at large. Abstract painting's saving virtue is that it offers us silent, not noise today. There's indeed a catastrophe at the end of the century: the level of everything, and the passing of stillness. Our culture cans not alter, but neither may setup art nor attempts at appropriation, no matter how smart and informed they are. Those art forms that appropriate the popular media are doomed to seem forever pale compared to them, or worse, to be sucked down into their black hole that is enormous. Abstract painting's power is this: it's a world superbly separate from our materialistic, morphing, ironic, hip age.

Read more…

Louis-XVI-2-L.jpg

Art galleries and art museums are both places to see and experience art. Galleries and museums share some characteristics; for instance, the artworks are typically shown in pristine spaces with minimal distraction and controlled lighting to showcase the exhibited art. This controlled setting allows the public to participate with the art in a specially-created atmosphere that is aesthetic.

There are a few significant differences between an art museum and an art gallery. As artist or an art lover, it is important that you know these differences.

An art gallery is a company that sells.

Gallery Artists

An art gallery also has a frequent background of the artists a stable of artists unified by some criteria such as feeling or tone of the artworks; or a shared style. Artists typically receive payment for their work when it's purchased, with no percentage taken by the gallery for representing the artist and revealing her or his work.

Gallery Focus

Galleries have a focus. While some will only show landscape painting, By way of instance, some galleries may specialize in contemporary art. Some are dedicated to a group of artists or one. A gallery typically has a monthly display, hosting an art opening, and boosting it to the media and prospective collectors with phone calls and print ads. Galleries become a brand representing a certain aesthetic point of view.

Gallery as Business

Ultimately, though, the art gallery is in the business sell their artworks and to promote its artists. In educating them about their stable of 19, the gallery staff will also spend considerable time with clients.

Art museums are almost universally entities which adhere to the mission statement. Most art museums have missions that are specific; for instance, they may focus on the works of selected media a particular school artwork, or even the works of one artist.

Nonpermanent Holdings

Unlike art galleries, which have no permanent holdings, museums usually have permanent (in addition to temporary) collections. Unlike galleries, museums aren't in the business of selling artworks; rather, they rely on endowments, gifts, grants, and, typically, admissions to pay for operating costs. (Note: When a museum sells an art, it's called deaccession.)

A board of trustees and directors oversee the museum, while an appointed director and a hired staff of curators, registrars, conservators, handlers, security, administrators and other arts professionals look after the operations. Many museums receive museum certification such certification provides strict guidelines for a museum.

It's important to remember that the rooms where art top art website Miami museums display their works are often called"galleries" These rooms in museums shouldn't be confused with standalone art galleries as described above.

Read more…

qILEkv3O9P0XJAIs3r9cqvduvZp.jpg

Do you remember on earth ! Christmas or Chanukah gift you ever got to be a kid? I. It would be a giant, metal, realistic looking stove that had a real door that opened and little pots and pans, a spoon and a spatula. Need to have been all of seven years old or so, and once i pulled out of the box, I nearly burst into tears. At that amount of my life, all I interested in were realistic dolls, Nancy Drew books and games. I wanted nothing to do with cooking even desiring great. I suppose one's personality doesn't really change much with age, after just about!

You can observe Shrek Forever After movie online trailers to get a picture of what is likely to happen in dunia movie 21 this particular next movie. Shrek is provided a nightmare where all he knows to be normal is upside straight. The kingdom of Far A long way away is destroyed, ogres have been hunted wonderful friends am not aware of who he can. His wife, Fiona, doesn't know Shrek either. So, this movie will be great, because all the known and loved characters are there, but with a twist.

Barbeque Supplies- The temperature is warm as there was a good possibility you are experiencing a BBQ to celebrate Father's Moment. Start the BBQ off right with new cooking tools for your BBQ movie online create.

Deadlifts are exceptional lower body workout together with minimal backwards. The good point about this workout is because that could about as near to some full body motion as you're able to get. It's clear the lower body and reduced back are at perform. But what you might not recognize is all of the other muscle groups concerned. All sorts of things from you for your shoulders is fitting in with get the bodyweight of your ground.

Another technique help a colleague in grief is using him or her information about. You could cinema online or go out for break. Or just call your friend onto play some TV or Video competitions. Keeping his or her mind off is convey . your knowledge way guide them overcome an crash. A few months later, when get comfortable with themselves once again, frequently thank you http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=movie for your own help.

There are two essential roles that testimonials serve if you use them smartly. One of the purposes can be always to add credibility via 1 / 3 party or neutral root cause. The other purpose is current you an enthusiastic insight into what really matters to some clients. A good testimonial aid you uncover those hidden hot buttons, which will surely help get more marketing materials.

Memories anyone lots of freshness create your cheerful in the entire day. If your ready appear for backward a while would be to refresh your eye, making it it, and render it the fitter for its prime function of looking up. All flicks cover a different story those places will vary and star dam also different. Famous distributors used all worlds' level equipment to make their flicks hit of hits. That achieve golden award publicize history if you need became a parts within this history then come this portal which you could see you're all flicks in crystal picture and sound good. All flicks are comes using fabulous 2D or 3D quality help to make every image alive and every scene became reality.

New teachers need a laptop. Teachers teach easily just regular 9 until 5 employment times. Tend to be 24/7 educators who seemingly, never just stop. It is for the reason that laptops are amazing tools to in our professional conditions. Let's say which your new teacher wants to get a cup of coffee or a bite consume. Most restaurants currently have Wi-Fi. Thus, a new teacher can take out their laptops while waiting on that cup of Joe or that hotdog/ hamburger/ sandwich. Just imagine how many grades could be entered into an online grading book, during a 10 to 20 mins lapse in activities.

A:Yes, our service is on the market to anyone in the world, simply to us citizens - almost all our movies have international distribution license, meaning anyone from anywhere can download and watch them when using the service, legitimately.

Read more…

SHOOT ON IPHONE

3819398025?profile=original

SHOOT ON IPHONE

This Is A Kind Of Bit Crazy But Turns Out That The Most Important iPhone Camera Features Are Completely Hidden From Casual Iphone Users That Every Iphone Photographer Should Use Start Using These Hidden Iphone Camera Features In Your Own Photography Your Photos Are Definetely Going To Include Now .

1. SWIPE LEFT TO OPEN CAMERA

Swiping Your Finger Horizontally Across The Screen Wuth Your Iphone To Open The Camera Lock Screen Now This Might Seem Slike A Small Thing But Who Really Doesnt Know How To Open The Camera App Prize But The Thing Is That The Best Shots Often Only Last First Late Second And If You Miss The Opportinuty You Migght Never Be Able To Recreate It And Because Of That It's Critical You Know How To Open The Iphone Camera Quicklest Way To Do That Is Simply Wake Your Iphone Up As I'm Doing It Right Now And To Dance Your Finger Presumably Across The Scross From Right To Left This Doesn;T Work For Any Reason You Have To Top But Once You Do This You're Ready To Start Shooting In Just A Second.

2.SET FOCUS

Setting The Focus By Yourself When You're Taking Photos So Let Me Show You One Thing That Fine So Other Focus Of The Icon Has Faked Somewhat Of An Average Focus For This Photo But That's Not What I Want So For An Image Like This It's Much Better If I Set The Focus Myself To Tap Finger Right Here On The Foreground You'll See The Square Box Apperas And Focus Is Now Set On Foreground But If I'd Like To Change That I Can Do It As Well And For That I'd Have To Set Focus Here On The Background.

3.ADJUST EXPOSURE MANUALLY

Some Interesting Exposure Feature For Background Because Of That We Have To Make Creative Choice Whether We're Going To Set Exposure On The Brighter Background Or On The Director Foreground Now How Do You Change Exposure On The Iphone To Do Is Tap Finger On The Screen And But Also Set Focus But Also Exposure.

4.LOCK FOCUS & EXPOSURE

You Is Really Important And That Is Locking Focus And Exposure So You Already Learn How To Set Focus And Exosure In Your Photos And How To Plan Adjust Exposure By Swiping Your Finger Across The Screen But What Then Happens Is That If Something Changes In Scene If You Just Take A Photo The Iphone Will Automatically Revert Focus And Exposure And If You're Something Like Me Who Puts A Lot Of Focus And Thought On Exposure And Then You Take A Photo Immediately Resets Back To The Default It's Just No Good And That's Why You Want To Lock Focus On Exposure So In Order To Lock Focus And Exposure All You Have To Do Is Tap And Hold Your Finger On The Screen And Hold You It Down For A Couple Of Seconds Until You See The Focus With Lock And Go A Head To Adjust Exposure.

SETTINGS CONCLUSION

for every one whos using the iphone eco friendly system things can be changed with a simple tricks and tips you need to just change these settings for a better level of photographer.

Read more…

3744208629?profile=original

The enigmatic tale of Lord Shiva keeps us on the edge always. The charisma, the valour, the benevolence, and the unsophisticated personality of Shiva gave us an only a hint of what he really is.

If we talk about Hinduism, Shiva completes the wondrous trinity with the divines Brahma and Vishnu. Philosophers, historians, poets, and religious experts would tell you Shiva is everything but nothing. And if you know nothing, you will say, Shiva, is the destroyer who annihilate the universe.

None of the inferences hold true if taken separately. Although religious scriptures and ancient civilisations have been stating Mahadev through their texts, frescos, and Lord Shiva paintings, a lot of misinterpretation still floats around.

The distinguished irony

Do you know what the word ‘Shiva’ means? Shiva means auspicious. Sometimes, Shiva is also referred to as “something related to the creator”. While there are few eminent religious scholars who do not shy away from saying Shiva means “That, which is not”.

Quite interesting that one word has a different meaning for people. The first two meanings are quite similar to each other, the third though, is quite distinctive.

Shiva is nothing? I mean how can we relate to it? Because all my life I have learned that Shiva was the God, then I came to know his role and title of Adiyogi (the first yogi who walked this earth as mentioned in Yogic science) and now this?

Well, the thought may seem berserk but it is quite deep if you connect to it. Science is progressing at a rapid pace and every now & then we are getting closer to understanding the long road of the evolution of our universe and of course earth.

Today, we all know that our universe before the big bang was nothing. This nothing gave birth to something and if the prophecies are to be believed, then this something will be again dissolved in nothing. And the cycle goes on. Shiva is defined as this nothing, which always prevails, even where the light is not present and the rivers don’t flow, and the not even a single life exist.

We all are destined to come out of Shiva and fate will again suck us back to him.

Now, the problem arises when the novels, scholars, and artists who create exquisite Lord Shiva paintings argue against this. According to them, Shiva was a man who attained extreme enlightenment that no one could ever accomplish.

Shiva was also the founder of Yogic science. A lot of people perceive Yoga as a practice of folding legs and hands or exhibiting great flexibility. But, Yoga is an art to utilise your body to the limitless possibilities by attaining specific postures or asanas.

Interestingly, this kills the concept of perceiving Shiva as a non-being or nothing. I know not many people would like it when I would refer Shiva as the darkness, but let me complete first.  Nothing can never include light; it can’t incorporate anything. Nothingness is a state where not even a single element can concur with. IMHO, this definition came from his ascetic nature.

Shiva is titled ‘Bholenath’ or the one who is super naïve because of his continuous state of transcendence he maintained. He could meditate to decontaminate his mind of any evil or a good thought. Yes, good also, because he knew that both good and evil occur together and absence of one may create misbalance. So he eradicated all the emotions.

That is why, the real attempt of people saying Shiva meaning “That, which is not” is maybe connecting with the lesson that through meditation one can enlighten himself/herself to a blissful state where nothing exists. And we all know, where nothing exists, God resides. That’s why in every religious scripture and tale, God is adjudged above human emotions and anything we can imagine.

A blend of spiritualism, science with Yogic science

Go through Lord Shiva paintings online and see how artistically artisans have tried to show the immaculateness and the dynamism by crafting him into a physical being or body. I am sceptical about when and how someone came of this blue-skinned physical figure because it is believed that Shiva walked on the earth 1, 15,000 years ago.  

Moving on, the representational form of generic Shiva with crescent stuck in headlocks, and Ganga River flowing from his hair is the most common manifestation of Adiyogi. His forehead also has a third eye, which according to Hinduism Shiva opens only to annihilate the entire universe. However, the real story is that his third eye destroyed Kama (the god of love) who was sent by Parvati to get Shiva out of his transcendence state.

The Nataraja form of Shiva is known to be present in CERN’s headquarters in Vienna, Switzerland. Reason? Well, some say because CERN acknowledges the true and hidden meaning of this form.

Shiva is seen dancing in a particular posture inside the ring of flames and he seems happy (as he is shown smiling). Now, his stance is regarded as Yogic postures and the flame behind him is the eternal fire of materialism. Shiva is performing a cosmic dance i.e. also known as the dance of creation and destruction.

The entire idea to depict Shiva in a figural form is to make common people understand the true teachings. Although, there is one form that can be found in almost all of the Shiva temples around the world is quite abstract. This form is known as the ‘Linga’.

You might have seen it and might also have heard that it represents the phallus of Shiva, which is by far the most absurd explanation.

The Linga is a form of description of human life in Hinduism. The Vishnu and Brahma are considered proton and electron respectively, while Shiva is the neutron.  The disc beyond the lingam signifies the Shakti (a form of energy field).

Till the time the neutrons and protons are same in number, the atom is stable. The very second neutron is touched, the atom becomes unstable. So, in theory, when Shiva is not disturbed and separated, it remains calm.

So, in terms of science, Shiva Lingam is a pure representation of an atom.

A lot has been said by the scholars and experts, various Lord Shiva paintings were created to match the significance and charm of this great deity, but still, the reality will be probably far stranger than what we know. What’re your thoughts? Let’s discuss.

Read more…

Flexible kolkata call girls services

All the Kolkata escorts which is provided by this Kolkata escorts service provide are very much popular between the guys as the service which is provided through the escorts in Kolkata is outstanding and complete any type of dreams and even also the desires which are very much hard to compete by every single guy on the earth.

3742422520?profile=original

But now all this is possible in just a single call to us. Yes we are ready to give you some of the most beautiful hottest which are ready to do anything with you and just because for your happiness and take your every order as it is sent by the god. Treat all our escorts in Kolkata nicely as she is trying her top level to bring smile on your face.

http://www.sonalsen.com/services/
http://www.sonalsen.com/gallery/
http://www.sonalsen.com/
http://www.sonalsen.com/models/

Read more…

The art world is quite intimidating not just for art collectors but for artists as well. It takes a lot of struggle for an artist to climb the ladder of success and fame. One big chance can change their entire life. Showcasing art in the gallery is considered as a great step. However, while every artist strives to get his work in some reputed gallery, not all succeed in impressing the gallerists with their work.

In this blog, we tell you how you can convince a gallerist to display your art in the paintings gallery. Take a look.

3732086841?profile=original

  • Check gallery website to know the norms- Every paintings gallery has different policies. You should always check the website of the gallery. If no guidelines for submitting the work are mentioned on their website, email them or call them. Stick to the guidelines told. Some galleries might not accept submissions from any artist because of the high reputation they hold. In such a case, your contacts can only help you. If you know a great artist, curator or some other person from the art community ask him to refer you there.
  • Select the galleries- After checking the website of various paintings gallery, you should make a list of galleries that showcase the art style you make. Such online art portals would be the one who would be more interested in showing the art you make.
  • Send an email – After shortlisting the galleries, draft a mail- an inquiry mail. In the email, attach the images of your work. Write a description of you and the art you make. Also, if you have a website, mention that. Also, draft a mail in a way that it tells how the gallery can benefit by displaying your work and not how u will be benefitted if the gallery will display your work. If your points will be valid and works impressive, they will surely show their interest by reverting back on the mail or calling you.
  • Secure a referral- Referrals are a great way to increase your chances of getting noticed by the gallerist. A reputed paintings gallery receives many works and due to the dearth of time, most of the emails go unnoticed. If you will have a referral from a known buyer, artist or someone who the gallerist is in contact with, it will be great. So, if you don’t have any such contacts, start building a few.
  • Decide what you will say about your art- If you want to stand out from the rest of the crowd, you should know about your art. At times, you would need to sell your art and yourself by telling them what makes your work so unique and worth buying. So, write and practice.
  • Tell them how your artworks fit their gallery- Tell them the time you visited the gallery and how the existing works in the gallery match the works made by you. You can connect the works in terms of color, medium, style or any other such thing.
  • Let them know what makes your art special- Let the gallery know what makes your art unique. Is it the technique, the style or theme? Just know what you and your art are and why the gallery should display it. Don’t fumble in front of the gallerist. If you will be uncertain yourself, how will convince the gallerist?
  • Organize your work – tell them how your works can be classified like the first five works will come under the same theme. The next ones would be based on some other theme. All of them will be completed in the year.
  • Create a context- show the gallerist the story behind your art. For instance, if there is a certain theme, tell them how each of them is connected to each other. Weave a story.
  • Discuss the rate of commission you want- After this, if the gallerist would be convinced, he will ask you for the commission. Tell him the amount you are expecting. Obviously, there will be some negotiation. So, decide the amount the minimum amount and don’t agree for a commission less than that. Sign the contract and see your works in the gallery of your dreams.
Read more…

 

http://www.dexteritysolution.com/photobucket-clone-script.html

 

This Imageshack Clone is an amazing script which suits the professional photographers and entertainment photographers who are prepared to feature their valuable photograph portfolio.

 

In this PHP Image Gallery Script, an administrator can deal with the number of classifications and sub-classifications and isolate their photograph as per the photograph display.

 

This 500px Script helps to expand the brand esteem and income show. You can basically transfer your photographs that can be refreshing with online networking for catching more guests and customers.

 

Users can likewise have a component as the blog that direct all important post that isolated from the late post and prevalent post. You can likewise profit by the praiseworthy portfolio choice which can be adaptable.

 

In Photobucket Clone, Users can upload photos and that can be updated with social media for capturing more customers and clients via media. Users can also have a feature on the blog that supervises all the relevant posts that are segregated as recent and popular posts.

 

Photobucket script has certain advanced features like CMS management, Social media integration, Google optimization etc… this feature makes this 500px Clone high tech and User-friendly.

 

500px Clone Script is very easy to handle and customize and has the feature to increase the brand value and revenue model. Our company provides 1 year of technical support, free updates for the source code for 6 months, and brand-free.

 

Once you buy our product, we will provide you with the full source code and your website will go live within the next 24 hours.

 

To contact our dexterity solution Team

Website URL: www.dexteritysolution.com

Mail us:  info@dexteritysolution.com     

Make a Call: India   – (+ 91) 9841300660

Make a Call: (USA) – (+1) 325 200 4515

Make a Call: (UK)   – (+44) 203 290 55303726231832?profile=original

Read more…

 PHP image gallery script is an amazing script which suits professional according to the photo gallery. This PHP image gallery script assists to increase the brand value and revenue model.

 

You can simply upload your photos that can be updated with social media for capturing more visitors and clients via this media script. You can also have a feature as a blog that supervises all the relevant posts that are segregated as recent and popular posts. You can also photographers and entertainment photographers who are ready to showcase their precious photo portfolios. From this image selling website PHP script, the admin can manage the number of categories, sub-categories and segregate their photo be benefited by the admirable portfolio option which can be customized.

 

 Images selling website PHP script has some features such as CMS management, social media integration, Google optimization, multiple galleries options, etc.  Admin can optimize the entire site.

 

We know that getting your portfolio website to the users and clients is necessary; hence we have made our script to be SEO-friendly by optimizing it with Google standards which makes your site come on top of the search results, thereby increasing your site's ranking and visits from the search engines directly.

 

To Contact Our PHPscriptsmall Team:

Website URL: https://goo.gl/WvktGB

Mail us:  support@phpscriptsmall.com

Make a Call: India – (+91) 9790033633

Make a Call: (USA) – (+1) 3252004515

Make a Call: (UK) – (+44) 2032905530

Read more…