<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: decoration, illustration, and abstraction</title>
	<link>http://theblindswimmer.com/2008/02/22/decoration-illustration-and-abstraction/</link>
	<description>a blog for painting, abstraction, and contemporary art for artists and art lovers</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gordon Fraser</title>
		<link>http://theblindswimmer.com/2008/02/22/decoration-illustration-and-abstraction/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Gordon Fraser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:10:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://theblindswimmer.com/2008/02/22/decoration-illustration-and-abstraction/#comment-4</guid>
		<description>Well, there is nothing wrong with a painting being decorative or illustrative. These are descriptive terms that classify the painting or describe its content. These terms are not judgmental and shouldn't be used as such. Matisse's paintings are decorative, Michaelangelo's are illustrative. It's simply a statement of fact. It's also wrong to use decorative and illustrative to describe the painting technique or surface quality of the painting itself. In other words, a painting isn't illustrative merely because it is painted without an awareness of surface and ground, and the shapes and forms depicted, whether literal or imaginative, float in space and/or jump off the surface. 

Referring to a painting pejoratively as illustration or decoration is an easy way for someone to avoid having to engage with the painting and having a serious dialogue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, there is nothing wrong with a painting being decorative or illustrative. These are descriptive terms that classify the painting or describe its content. These terms are not judgmental and shouldn&#8217;t be used as such. Matisse&#8217;s paintings are decorative, Michaelangelo&#8217;s are illustrative. It&#8217;s simply a statement of fact. It&#8217;s also wrong to use decorative and illustrative to describe the painting technique or surface quality of the painting itself. In other words, a painting isn&#8217;t illustrative merely because it is painted without an awareness of surface and ground, and the shapes and forms depicted, whether literal or imaginative, float in space and/or jump off the surface. </p>
<p>Referring to a painting pejoratively as illustration or decoration is an easy way for someone to avoid having to engage with the painting and having a serious dialogue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ginger Marshall</title>
		<link>http://theblindswimmer.com/2008/02/22/decoration-illustration-and-abstraction/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Ginger Marshall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://theblindswimmer.com/2008/02/22/decoration-illustration-and-abstraction/#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Brilliant!   There's a very fine line between decorative abstraction and fine art.  I am constantly struggling to push my work from mere pretty colors on canvas into that rarified stratosphere of fine art.  Sometimes with success!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brilliant!   There&#8217;s a very fine line between decorative abstraction and fine art.  I am constantly struggling to push my work from mere pretty colors on canvas into that rarified stratosphere of fine art.  Sometimes with success!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
