You know by now that abstraction simply means “not true-to-life.” Look at each of these artworks and answer the following questions about it:
Is it abstract?
If it is abstract, how is it abstracted?
Do you like this artwork? Why or why not?
Click on the images to enlarge them and learn more about abstract landscapes.
The Park at Carrières Saint-Denis by Georges Braque, 1909, Analytil Cubism
This landscape is abstracted by the artist's use of simplified, geometric shapes and forms. Braque breaks down the trees and buildings in this landscape until they consist of cubes and planes. This also makes them meld together so that it is difficult to differentiate between the background and foreground. While this eliminates some of the depth in the composition, it also creates an interesting interaction for the viewer.
Ridgefield Landscape by Man Ray, 1914, Dada
This landscape utilizes an interesting perspective and line to create abstraction. The work is done from a bird's-eye view, and the lines indicate changes in the landscape, kind of like a topographic map. However, structures (like buildings) are indicated with simple shapes that break up the lines.
The Orchard by Maurice de Vlaminck, 1905, Fauvism
This artwork is abstracted by the artist's use of bold, exaggerated color. While it seems the artist is portraying this orchard during the fall when the leaves change color, it looks like the orchard is on fire. This exaggerated color creates an interesting interaction between the right and left sides of the artwork.
There are varying degrees of abstraction, from fully abstract (only shapes and colors with no identifiable objects) to representational abstraction (unrealistic, but with identifiable objects). Understanding the difference helps you decide how you want your artwork to look. The artworks above illustrate representational abstraction. The following artworks are completely abstracted. Do they look like landscapes to you?
Lost in Rio de Janeiro by Ronni Landfield, Lyrical Abstraction
This artwork is completely abstracted to the point where it is simply color and texture. If it weren't for the title, it would be difficult to decipher what the subject actually is.
Bridge, Landscape from Four Points of View by David Burliuk, 1911, Futurism
This artwork tests the limits of Analytic Cubism. Here, the artist not only breaks down the subject into basic shapes and lines, but he also combines multiple perspectives in one artwork. This distorts the image so much that it is difficult to decipher what is happening.
On Brooklyn Bridge by Albert Gleizes, 1917, Orphism
This artwork breaks down the subject into repeating lines, shapes, and colors. The artist hints at a city in the background, and the cables of the bridge are visible, but they are disconnected. The circles of varying colors may represent the headlights of cars driving over the bridge. Abstract art gives artists the freedom to explore symbolism, and it forces them to use creative problem-solving skills when trying to simplify objects.
It’s difficult to tell these are landscapes if you don’t know the name of the artwork. They are completely broken down into lines, shapes, and colors with very few, if any, identifiable objects. What do you think of these artworks? Which type of abstraction appeals to you? Why do you think that is? Write down your responses in your sketchbook before moving on and learning how to deconstruct landscape objects.
