Abstract Art (Dixon)

Lee Pina, watercolor/acrylic

1) How would you describe the image/object being presented? What movement/aesthetic is this work (or artist) most closely associated with? what/when/where is (was) this movement in a nutshell?
I saw it like the texture on a dragonfly's wings. Considering I searched Google for abstract art, I would say that this is abstract. The artist's other pieces on their page were of similarly vague images. Abstract art is one of the more modern movements, and is still very alive today.

2) What are the tools/materials being used? Are these the most effective use of these items? Is this piece strongly built/composed FORMALLY?
It is a painting in watercolor and acrylic paint, at least that's what her statement said. I'm not sure how much of each is used in this piece, though. I think the Pina used the materials really well in showing lots of bursts of color as well as using texture from paper or fabric to their advantage. I think the fact that the major lines that can be read go diagonal is strong because diagonals are generally strong in things like photographs. It would have been very different had they gone exactly vertical or horizontal.

3) What is your response to this piece? Is it narrative/non-narrative --EXPLAIN!!
I was drawn to this piece because of the weaving of bright colors and that the texture was very interesting. You could probably think up a narrative for any piece, but I'd go ahead and say this piece is non-narrative because there are no recognizable figures or shapes.

4) Is there an artist's statement/explanation for the work? Do you agree with/understand the artist's intent? Was this your original read? "I paint because there are no words. While texture and color are the core of my work, I am exploring what can be created from ‘no-thing’, without an end in mind. I want to create an internal experience, an expression of feeling … mine and yours!" -Lee Pina This doesn't change my read because I could tell that it was more of a color and texture study, I mean, that's what I was drawn to.


5) What constructive criticism could you give to improve/strengthen the piece?
I'd say it'd be nice to have some of the colors mix together less because there are some areas that are a bit muddled.

Lucie Beardwood, mixed media

1) How would you describe the image/object being presented? What movement/aesthetic is this work (or artist) most closely associated with? what/when/where is (was) this movement in a nutshell?
At first, I saw it as just a mixture of colors, but I feel like the purple could be an eye. With that, I could see the blue on the left as another eye and the border of light and dark gray just under it as the muzzle of a wolf. Once again, I was just looking through abstract art.

2) What are the tools/materials being used? Are these the most effective use of these items? Is this piece strongly built/composed FORMALLY?
This piece was made with "mixed media", but that definitely includes some paint, probably acrylic or oil. I think whatever paint was used well. There are placed where texture appears due to the use of dry brushing. I think it has a pretty strong composition with how some of the more prominent colors have some characteristics of the rule of thirds.

3) What is your response to this piece? Is it narrative/non-narrative --EXPLAIN!!
Even though I can kinda see a wolf or person in the image, I think that's just because I've been watching a show with those elements in it. I'd say that this is non-narrative because there aren't any recognizable things in it.

4) Is there an artist's statement/explanation for the work? Do you agree with/understand the artist's intent? Was this your original read?
Yes, the artist says, "My work is process based and is intrinsically linked with my interest in duality, specifically in achieving a balance between the two states of chaos and order." This kind of goes with my initial read in that it did feel quite chaotic, although I'm not sure if I see the "order" in it.

5) What constructive criticism could you give to improve/strengthen the piece?
I think it works well enough. I'm not a big fan of abstract art in that I prefer images with figures, but I think this ones does alright.

Wassily Kandinsky, Yellow and Blue, 1866-1944

1) How would you describe the image/object being presented? What movement/aesthetic is this work (or artist) most closely associated with? what/when/where is (was) this movement in a nutshell?
I feel like I can almost see a face in the yellow figure, or perhaps a perfume bottle. As far as I could tell, Kandinsky is known for abstract art.

2) What are the tools/materials being used? Are these the most effective use of these items? Is this piece strongly built/composed FORMALLY?
There wasn't anything that said what was used, but I'd say paint of some kind. Yeah, I think whatever medium was used well in that the colors are very vibrant.

3) What is your response to this piece? Is it narrative/non-narrative --EXPLAIN!!
I think the colors are nice, but I'm not a fan of abstract, and this painting just doesn't hold my attention for more than a minute or two. I think it's non-narrative.

4) Is there an artist's statement/explanation for the work? Do you agree with/understand the artist's intent? Was this your original read?
On the site I found it on, there was no artist statement.

5) What constructive criticism could you give to improve/strengthen the piece?
Considering it's apparently a famous piece, I think it's safe to assume that it's perceived as a "good" image. I don't have any criticism for it.