I mean besides the fact that aesthetically surrealism tends to be more realistic in a representational way.
When you look at abstract art by definition it is taking something and twisting and distorting it into a pure design/emotional piece that is either not representational or barely representational in a realistic way.
When I say abstract art I am talking about Jackson Pollock with his PURE abstracted drip paintings of random lines, compositions and colors splashed onto a canvas, I am talking about Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque with their fragmented and shape based workd of cubism and I am talking about expressionists/impressionists such as Van Gogh who takes reality and abstracts it in the sense that color and emotion becomes the main focus of the painting with the tiny lines that run into each other to represent the picture, people like Jean Michael Basquiat who paint real life things in a very distorted graffiti tribalesque way etc.
When you look at surrealism it is alot like abstraction. You are taking reality and twisting it but surrealism is more meant to be representational and to convey dreams and the unconscious. Inspired alot by the dada anti-art movement and the psycho-analysis of the human behavior by the psychologist/writer Sigmund Freud.
When I talk about surrealism I am talking about the dream and nightmare works of Salvador dali with the long shadows and liquid flowing figures and the subtle distortions of the surrealist Rene Magritte as well as H.R. Giger and his aliens and demon worlds.
What I am suggesting is that abstract art can be surrealism and surrealism is abstract.
Think about it. Abstract art movements like cubism and impressionsm/expressionism are based on reality with the study of specific aspects of nature and aesthetics. Cubism heavily studies dimensional concepts, the breaking down of forms and distortions of figures. Impressionsm and expressionism explore light and raw emotion, take for example "The scream" by Edvard Munch. It is an abstract piece exhibiting raw emotion.
Surrealism takes reality and twists and distorts it realistically. Like Salvador Dali for example, he takes reality, abstracts it and puts it back out in a still realistic way. Surrealism is often times considered the cross between realism and abstraction. But why is that??
Its because while it is realistic work it still has a distorted abstract feel to it. So then wouldnt cubism be surrealism as well? Take Picassos "Guernica" for example. It is portraying the bombing of th city of Guernica back in the war days of the 30s. In the painting you can clearly see representational figures but they are broken into shapes and distorted black and white figures. They are representational, yet not realistic. Wuldnt this still be surrealism?
This is seen within Dalis work too. Take his "The great masterbater" painting for example. The main figure in the painting LOOKS like its existing in reality like you can touch it, but its really just a bulky abstract looking kind of thing that reflects a dream like quality.
So then, is surrealism just a chapter of abstract art? is surrealism just a made up term and surrealism has existed longer than the title of surrealism itself?
Was surrealism just a title created for this new form of abstract art that happened to have a representational aesthetic as well as the traditional abstract distortion of figures?
Pollocks splatter/drip art can even be interpretated as surrealism in a sense. Because his paintings do have actual artelements to them, such as variation between line thickness and colors on the canvas. Complete abstraction made with randomness might still be portraying some subconscious ideas while painting?
All of this has really been on my mind alot.
-Jackson Pollock- Lavender mist- [Abstract- drip art]
-Salvador Dali- The visage of war- [Surrealism]
- Pablo Picasso- The three musicians [abstract- cubism]Are these three paintings really so different from each other in all reality?
In my opinion they are all abstract by nature and all hold surrealistic qualities.
The painting by Pollock is completely abstract, as is drip/splatter art in general. BUT there is a scheme and idea behind the piece seeing as there are certain colors used, and there is a certain way the drips land on the painting. Is this painting surreal in the sense that you subconsciously build the idea as you make the drip/splatter painting? Is it representing in the mind as to why it turns out like it does?
The Dali painting is surrealism. But isnt surrealism just taking reality and twisting it? asnt surrealism existed for longer than the word has even been around? Id argue that cubism has alot of surreal qualities and that "surrealism" by definition has been in art alot longer than the name "surrealism" has. I'd say that "Surrealism" is a branch of abstract art seeing as abstract is expressing something that differs from reality and isnt always representational, in fact it strays from representation alot of times. Is surrealism just the branch of realistic abstract art?
The Picasso painting is one of the most famous cubist pieces to date as well as abstract. I feel that this "abstract cubist" piece has surreal qualities. While the figures are broken up into shapes and fractions they are also split up and jumbled up and become truly surreal.
So is there really a difference between abstraction and surrealism?
