beinArt International Surreal Art Forum

by **walrus** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:07 pm

Again for the cheap seats ...LOL

What is the difference between Surreal & Abstract?

Curious to know what others have to say about this.

walrus

by **dislatino** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:07 am

To me Surreality can be found in almost all Abstract Art, since it reveals to me many automatic forms which come from the subconscious mind, i then percieve the abstractions as an 'X' thing and they convey a certain feeling or conjure various thoughts either new, old or memories from another time.

But the difference for me at least is that Surreal Art is more foccused on the 'Surrealist Object' wheather automatic or pre-planned and 'Form of Representation' wheather it be Human or Meta-physical all composited on a canvas with the primary element of Juxtapositoning.

So in short Surreal art seems to be more organized with more thoughts being percieved by the viewer then an expressive piece of abstarct creation.......which also gives provoking thoughts and brings forth emotions in a viewer due to its strokes and colour...so in super short:

They are the same but they are not :rofl:

Interesting post, hope more people will post thier point of view.

And i won't even start to talk about the technical difference between the two, theres just so much alike but also so different.

by **jlof** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:07 pm

Like in any realtionship, there are ofcourse much deeper levels there than the love at first sight.

But I think the first thrill and pleasure of art is the novelty experience it gives the viewer. The moment when something unexpected is seen a channel for the raw sensory experience opens.

Surreal art and abstract art also seek that thrill. But I think abstract art relies on it and more easily loses its novelty. When the viewer has seen a couple of abstract paintings. She/he just sees another abstract painting... the first thrill is gone forever.

Surrealism embeds much more of the painters subconsciusness making it more alien and much harder to get used to. Thus making it more interesting for a longer time. Also the quality of realism that is usually put into surreal art, tricks the viewer to take more interest in piece. Making him more open for the visual message of the piece.

http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curricul ... NSPROC.HTM

by **Joshua Burton** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:19 pm

Very well said, both of you.

Abstract - to pull from.

Maybe a difference can be found in where the imagery is pulled from? Abstract works are often representative of a physical or 'objective' reality seen with eyeballs and then re-interpreted based on a certain style influence. They are often also visual geometric puzzles that flow from a logic-driven system of creation that has rules as to how things are arranged. The exception is certain Action Painters (somewhat awkwardly placed under "Abstract Expressionism") who pretty much surpassed the idea of rules completely to try and make a direct connection between paint and subconscious. Pollock was very Jung-influenced.

Surrealism is all about pulling from the mind. Imagined imagery. The visual-reference is in the minds, dreams, or subconscious. The area where distinction gets hazy is where abstract/surrealist are both pulling from their minds and creating automatically. As is said somwhere above (I remember reading) both abstract and surrealist have automatist tendencies. A difference that I see in the majority of paintings done in such a way in each category is that surrealists tend to be less influenced by style.

Lets be honest, surrealism has always been less decorative and less marketable than the monster of abstraction (at least until now, I think). Ask someone that doesn't keep up with art a whole lot to name five abstract artists, then ask them to name five surrealists. I think that less-popular quality has helped surrealism maintain a certain sense of freedom that is imperative to it's existance, and has encouraged the individual not to succumb to style, but to feel completely free in creating. I think that this free quality has helped many people find their own unique vision without a shitload of pressure too. HM.

Tough request... I think that the lines blur together between many types of art. Bob Ross painted without reference, so was he surreal or abstract, or realist, or an alien from outer space?

Time to write a paper!

-Josh

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:41 am

take a lens go to an surreal or visionary work and you will have your abstract/expressionistic painting, take an even better lens and go to the same work and you have suprematism.

so all the abstract art and color field painters are just a joke for me....

most modern abstract paintings could be made by an ape. As Iam a human I want to make human art, not ape art.

but after all there are a view great abstract painters who really kickl ass, mostly DEES new works, but he comes from the surreal/visionary landscapes of the mind so looking at an abstract work of him is a mystical experience, something an ape could not make.

this is of course the point were I would say that the soul of the artist can make an abstract work of art a sacred one, and that the finest technique cannot help an ape to create a sacred work.

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 9:46 am

http://www.dees.at/p4/20.htm

http://www.dees.at/p4/10.htm

http://www.dees.at/p4/14.htm

http://www.dees.at/p5/16.htm

http://www.dees.at/p5/22.htm

http://www.dees.at/p5/17.htm

AMEN

by **Joshua Burton** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:17 pm

Well... I'm not a huge fan of popular abstracts (I think Dees is doing something refreshing there). But there's definitely more to most abstract painting than a lens and some one elses work.

A few of the abstract painters had spiritual intentions, though I think that mostly failed. To invoke the spiritual through color combinations is a bit odd. I don't see a blue and red Honda next to eachother in traffic and think "Wow its God!". Emotion, sure, spirituality... ehhh not-so-much. I've always enjoyed the basic ideas of the visual puzzle in abstracts, it's something most every painter has to deal with, no matter what they are painting... you eventually think of a painting in that way.

It's all necessary in the developement of this thing we call art though. We are in an age where it seems like all the options have been layed out in front of us. Apparently, we have a pretty good idea about anything we can do with paint on a canvas. Hooray, now it seems the new must be in the content, since we've practically exhausted all possible artistic intention.

From here, especially on this site, it looks like many artists are moving back to one of arts early purposes; spiritual works... Except this time they're pretty free to do what they want. Sweetness :worship:

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:27 am

SURREALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALISM

by **jlof** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:28 pm

phedonas wrote:SURREALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALISM

Is it possible to have opposites in the art where every 'genre' and 'style' blends together seamlessly thru so many possibilities.

And since there can be only subjective kind of human experiences. Also what is reaching towards realism is still filtered thru artists mind making it just an interpretation of the real. And the result is in some degree always surreal or even 'psychedelic'. :juggling:

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:37 pm

SUBJECTIVE?IM HUMAN, NOT A DOG.SURREALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALLISM.IM A DOG,NOT AHUM

by **dislatino** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:28 pm

phedonas wrote:SUBJECTIVE?IM HUMAN, NOT A DOG.SURREALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF REALLISM.IM A DOG,NOT AHUM

I'm real sorry phedonas but could you explain yourself a little more, i really did not understand what you said, jeje, anyhow....i quite agree with Jlof

by **phedonas** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:53 am

I M HUMAN.THIS IS A OBJECTIVE STATE OF MIND THAT NONE OF US WITHOUT INSANITY (MENTAL ILLNESS) CAN DISAGREE WITH.THA IS REALLISM.DO U UNDERSTAND?REALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SURREALISM.SURREALISM IS EVERYTHING.DO U UNDERSTAND?

by **jlof** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:36 am

phedonas wrote:I M HUMAN.THIS IS A OBJECTIVE STATE OF MIND THAT NONE OF US WITHOUT INSANITY (MENTAL ILLNESS) CAN DISAGREE WITH.THA IS REALLISM.DO U UNDERSTAND?REALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SURREALISM.SURREALISM IS EVERYTHING.DO U UNDERSTAND?

If all the 'sane' people, really were objective there would be far less problems in the world. Only by losing the naive illusion that your mind is sane and objective you become sane and objective.

Btw. Could you please find the caps lock key on your keyboard and deactivate it. (It's Usually above the left shift-key and on left of the 'A'-key) Your arguments would look 'nicer'.

by **dislatino** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:36 pm

jlof wrote:
phedonas wrote:I M HUMAN.THIS IS A OBJECTIVE STATE OF MIND THAT NONE OF US WITHOUT INSANITY (MENTAL ILLNESS) CAN DISAGREE WITH.THA IS REALLISM.DO U UNDERSTAND?REALISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SURREALISM.SURREALISM IS EVERYTHING.DO U UNDERSTAND?

If all the 'sane' people, really were objective there would be far less problems in the world. Only by losing the naive illusion that your mind is sane and objective you become sane and objective.

Btw. Could you please find the caps lock key on your keyboard and deactivate it. (It's Usually above the left shift-key and on left of the 'A'-key) Your arguments would look 'nicer'.

Well back to the phedonas post above, i think i understand you a bit better now, but i'm slightly worried now who is 'US' and your point of view makes Insanity feel like a crime, do people with insanity not understand what you mean? Have you ever 'TRIED' explaining this point to a person with a mental illness?

Anyhow once again, i seem to agree with Jlof not that we're ganging up on you or anything, but i would take Jlof's comment under consideration, lose the CAPS

by **phedonas** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:12 pm

i dont think tha i said anything about me u or almost the whole worl being sane?i said that real is the oposite of surreal.the real is objective,the surreal can be objective and subjective.

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:22 pm

fugato?

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:25 pm

cool,...................feels like

surreal fundamentalism :plotting:

by **Thee.P.Fitz** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:53 pm

It has been my experience that weird can be normal, but normal can't be weird. Therefore if a work of art is abstract, it is automatically weird. Because when you paint lines and squiggles and call it something like "The Soul Feeling Orange" :evil:

, it is not surreal, because it lost it's touch with the realism required to ground it in surrealism.

If you had a picture of bicycles floating in an aquarium, called it "The Soul Feeling Orange," then that would be weird and surreal.

But, to bring in normal, if you take say a landscape painting it is niether abstract nor surreal.

So I think that the artist's intention is the key to the distinction and once the artist has entered the realm of the weird, normalacy is gone.

by **phedonas** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:09 pm

when u paint.u create something that is not real.is an image.it may looks real but it is not.that is reality.

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:24 am

oh man on this plane exists nothing that is not reality, everything is reality, even a 10 gramm psylo trip is real, a dream is real a painting is also real. But if you mean Magrittes idea: ce ci ne pas una pipe (that is no pipe) then you are right, the painting is real, but the content is not....I cannot eat a painted apple, but I could throw the painted apple in your direction and it would hurt you.....

by **phedonas** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:35 am

the state is that ALL thinks can be real and surreal.it is depenedant on what state of human mind are we talking about.it can be objective and subjective the same time.the real is objective,the surreal can be objective,can be subjective and also can be both of them.

by **Joshua Burton** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:23 pm

There is no objective from a scientific point of view. Human sensory organs are proven to be extremely limited in experiencing this supposed 'objective reality' we live in - therefore how can we accurately be realists? The machines that made us aware of this are still in some form of evolution too, unable to visibly experience what we theorize must be truth.

We all experience it differently too, no one sees color exactly the same. How does anyone paint objectively? If I paint from a dream, that is real to me, then what I'm painting is a reality I experienced. And if surrealism and realism can both be objective then how are they not the same at some point?

by **phedonas** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:11 pm

i said im a human

by **Thee.P.Fitz** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:19 am

I am wondering...When I look at the painting of something that doesn't exist in this realm, it must exist in the mind's realm. I could not eat a painted apple, but if it had a ten foot green worm all around it, I may not want to go near that apple. Unless I liked worms. And if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, our minds must be extremely different. Yet objectively collectively we create fantastic realms to satisfy our imaginations.

I think it is a natural drive to create alternatives, because logic leads to predictable paths. Like this sentence is logical. So to break the chains, we surreally destroy/create paths that lead toward evolutionary progress in the consciousness at large. And it's fun :lol:

by **Joshua Burton** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:36 pm

You're human... okay but we're talking about artistic interpretation. We (at least WERE) discussing the ability or inability to separate artistic styles or approaches into different categories, or so I thought.

How do you paint the fact that you are a certain species of animal, and how does that relate to the subject of "WHAT is the difference between surreal and abstract?"

It seems the convo has evolved to a comparison between Surrealism and Realism, which as far as I'm concerned are styles of art, and unrelated to the fact that I am a four-limbed mammal that walks upright. Bears can also walk upright though, and monkeys...

Words are only defined by more words that need more definition. The dictionary is telling me that humans are distinguished by their rationality and fallibility, it's distinctive to our race. There you have two more big words; rational and fallible. We can reason out our actions and we have the ability to be inaccurate (these go hand in hand...). This assumes that no other species, even the ones that we're unaware of, can reason or be false. How the hell can we possibly know that? The lines always blur, words cannot specifically define anything - unless they only reference themselves. Consider "It is it." and "That is that." True statements... or are they?

-Josh

by **phedonas** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:42 pm

i said that im a human.(that is objective)my sentence was complete.the human has the ability to acknowledge.this is the reason that philosophy appeared.art and science is part of the philosophy.everything can be conclude in two states realistic and surrealistic.surrealistic can conclude everything(reallistic too).it depends the state of mind.i only said that surrealism is the opposite of realism.you started the conversation.

by **jlof** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:55 pm

In some point of artistic development one comes to a point where one feels that one needs to choose a 'genre' and group of same spirited artists. Part of this choice is abandoning other paths, usually this is done with a thought that other directions are somehow inferior to the one you are choosing.

But later when a greater perspective has been reached, one sees that all art is really the same. Words like "abstract" and "surreal" are only words that try to describe an experience that can't be accurately described by words.

So trying to describe what is surreal and what is abstract, is useless. It is just the same as trying to describe with words what is sweet and what is salty. Instead let's taste sugar and salt. :)

And to the question are there opposites in art....

Try to undo putting too much sugar in your coffee with equal amount of salt.
:wink:

by **phedonas** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:42 pm

i am a man.why i have to put sugar or salt to my coffe?

by **jlof** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:47 am

phedonas wrote:i am a man.why i have to put sugar or salt to my coffe?

Oh man... I hope it's just your english vocabulary that is lacking

from wikipedia:

In language, a metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin) is a rhetorical trope defined as a direct comparison between two or more seemingly unrelated subjects.

by **Thee.P.Fitz** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:03 am

I agree with the fact that surrealism is everything. It's like when ready mades were used as art. And because R. Mutt or Marcel Duchamp was a surrealist, surrealism gets credit for turining everything into art. I'm talking about "The Fountain" which is a urinal used back in 1917 or so.

Therefore, must not abstract art be surreal?

It is fortunate, however, that cooler minds prevail, and some sense is maintained. Imagine a surreal politician... Well that may be repugnant but I'm talking about salty coffee.

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:52 am

I think Jlof mady a good statement, as everybody knows that talking about art (wich is an act of definition) will lead nowhere.

talking about the difference between artforms or art in general is a horrifiing senseless act, as it will lead to a atmosphere where everyone will attack the notion of the other, while protecting the own one.

"for me" art in our time is far beyond definitions, you cannot define one artmovement and the other and you cannot define art in general, you could try this, but then you have to face the legions of minds that stand in opposition.

So I respect every notion and view but trade my one as the best, without trying to convince others of my view (that is of course not always possible as most people love to be manipulated in our time), but what is also important for me is to work as something like a "cultureeducator", this means for me to teach people who do not have a "in my point of view" healthy notion or no notion of art, what this manifestation could mean.

by **dislatino** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:46 pm

Well said Mathis! while most of the above is very true, the conclusion to this argument was always going to be the undefinable, but ahhh....now there is nothing left to say.

:rofl:

jlof: Metapherin :lol:

Did you really have to go that far, thats legendary.

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:19 am

are u stupid?i meant the reason that makes a human togain the knowledge of what is he doing.my question was an answer too you.

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:04 am

art is everything that you make it art throught recognition and by putting something personal at it.everything can be art from them time u say that is art.real and surreal are states of mind.

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:40 am

let them bring the mirror.....

by **jlof** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:12 pm

phedonas wrote:are u stupid?i meant the reason that makes a human togain the knowledge of what is he doing.my question was an answer too you.

I try not to confuse you with further metaphors, but being a surrealist I can't help myself....

Stupidness is for some an opposite of wisdom, but from a wiser perspective 'stupid' is just a degree of wisdom.

This conversation is not completely hopeless, because thinking in opposites is a degree of thinking.

:juggling:

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:38 pm

i think tha u are confused.your metaphor didnt confuse me.my answer confuse your brain.please dont cry.beeing stupid is not beeing wise.we cannot compare a person with a down syndrom with a philoshopher.

by **dislatino** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:10 pm

I'm sorry but i will refrain from the convo......for now....being a spectator and hearing these wild shenanigans (not actually harming anyone but i decided to use the word in this context) is extremely funny!

AM I STUPID? Phedonas?

"WE"...... who is 'We' cannot compare a person with Down Syndrome with a Philosopher.
WHY THE HELL NOT??
*this will be funy to hear*

I hate to break it to you BUT You my friend are the one confused in the mind

by **phedonas** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:29 pm

the one is ultimate stupidity and the other is ultimate person of knoledge of human.stupid is not wise.A person with down syndrome is not wise.can u understand the difference?or not.do you have down syndrome?why are u so angry?why did this bothered you so match.please tell me.

by **dislatino** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:42 pm

I do not need to clarify my feelings to you since clearly you overlook the fact that your incompetence makes me smile :lol:

You seem to be taking a HUGE step backwards in time, DE-evolutionised human would only compare such persons. Infact the fact that you compare anything at all sounds wildly familiar to my Confused Mind theory that i have now given to you.

For your sake and only for your sake, i will defy what i previously said in my first sentence and let you know, I am not angry....at all! But as i delievered in my second paragraph you really do amuse me, it's like your words entertain a grand circus in my mind, maybe you should learn to think before you say such absurdities. :lol:

by **jlof** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:02 am

Isn't it wonderful how art can reach such different levels of people.

Phedonas, from your attitude I see that you are young, so your ignorance is forgiven. Stupidity is a low step in stairs to wisdom, take more steps and you see where you were.

And please, don't use illnesses as insults. Your parents should have taught that.

by **phedonas** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:24 pm

i dont thiink that i can amuse you.you must be unschooled to say something like that.i know that my thoughts are confused but they are from their complex.im just ahuman for now.Do you understand hermafrodite person?(i admit that my english are sometimes hilarius)

by **Joshua Burton** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:04 am

And now we have brought this thread to the point of it being a metaphor for the current state of humanity.

Welcome to no where land. Nonsense defeats understanding and progressive discussion.

For the record, I think the opposite of realism in spoken english is unrealism... not surrealism. The prefix 'sur' means 'on the basis of' or 'with regard to'. That basically means surreality is based on reality, it contains elements of "objective reality". I don't think opposites can contain even a small part of, be based on, or influenced by one another.

Opposites are supposed to be stagnant opposing forces as far as I know, each containing none of the other. If something is lacking of all reality then it is UNreal... and thus impossible to comprehend in that moment as it lacks resemblance to any objective thing. Surreality is comprehendable, you have some element of reality to hang onto inside of surreal work. Unreal art is ephemeral, but not exactly impossible I think. It's a worthy challenge, eh?

Love,
Josh

by **phedonas** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:28 am

unreal does not exists.surreal can be unreal and real and surreal.real is something specific.surreal is everything

by **Joshua Burton** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:33 pm

That last post was really just to clarify that they are not opposites. If surreal is everything then how do we distinguish between surreal, real, and unreal? When is real not surreal? I find being human a pretty surreal experience almost every day. What if you woke up one day and realized that 'human' is a word that by definition lacks the specificity to truly separate you from many other mammals. I do agree that surreality contains elements of all realities... surreality is based on other realities.

I recommend reading the "Allegory of the Cave". It's an interesting immersion in to Plato's ideas about how reality exists. He basically says that true reality exists only in the mind. It's also interesting for it's relation to Christianity and the idea of 'moving into the light' or 'accepting the light' of the big 'G'. I think early visions of death (moving toward the light at the end of the tunnel) were based on Plato's thoughts here too. I also think it contains within it some reference to unreality.

I'd like to hear other comments on unreality and whether or not it exists.

It's damn hard to explain, but I think it exists. It's a word that is more for a concept or a fleeting, ephemeral moment that exists more on an individual basis than anything - you give an 80 year old nun 10 hits of LSD and a blindfold, she's probably going to experience something unreal. Unreal is recognizable after the fact (when it transforms into the REAL or SURREAL). I think it is possible to experience unreality, but only in the present. You can recall having had an unreal experience, but never re-experience it... unless you completely forget it. Just thoughts.

Just a side-note: Keep petty name-calling in the AOL chat rooms, this is a place for respect and discussion. We're just here to share ideas, not call each other names. We don't need that kind of talk - especially here - try to stay positive and respect the conversation by adding to it, not turning it into a "I have the bigger penis" thing. If we're going to pretend to be enlightened thinkers then lets maintain some sense of respect for others, yes?

Thank you,
Josh

by **phedonas** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:34 pm

real is everythink from the human as far the universe.these two are opposites as the reality with the surreality.unreal cannot exist.the human mind cannot understand it.real is humans mind creation.i dont tell that is fake or dream or somethink else.i say that human recognize the world and he reached the limits tha he can understand.unreal is not possible for humn mind,surreal is and real is.inside the human mind real is opposite of surreal,unreal is not possible.only the thought of unreal is possible.i dont like the personality and thoughts of plato.

by **jlof** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:38 pm

Let's not sink into the swamp of meanings, but return back to the first question what is the difference between surreal and abstract.

My own visionary experiences have shown me that real, surreal and abstract are levels in the system that builds the understanding of our surroundings.

Realism is the normal domain of objects and their explanations.

Surreal is the level where new strange objects appear or familiar objects seem unfamiliar. Even further in surreal (psychedelic surreal such as dali) the space and negative space become equal. Space between objects becomes as important as objects.

Symbolism is what can overlap real , surreal and abstract too giving the layer of deeper meanings. It is how culture links objects and their relations, shapes, color etc.

Abstract is the mathematical, geometrical level where objects can no longer be extracted from their surroundings. Areas of light and color can be sensed, but they have no meaning.

In great masterpieces of art you can see all of these levels.
Let's see an example...Sandro Botticelli's coronation of the virgin

The level of realism is obvious. We can see that people and objects.
The image contains surrealism for sure, the place and characters are not what you would expect to see in ordinary world. There is christian symbolism, but also universal symbols of enlightenment. Also how the black and golden angels are filling each other's negative spaces and details of auras (not visible in the small image) revela that Sandro had insight to some sort of visionary experiences. The abstract is not so obvious, but anyone who has painted very large paintings knows the abstractness of areas inside the painting, especially fabrics and textures. Also the composition of this painting is based on sacred geometry, alas it is abstract
in macro and micro.

So you could rate this painting in some degree realistic, surreal, symbolistic and also abstract.

by **phedonas** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:32 pm

i think that a painting can be only surrealistic

by **Mathis Mondhut** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:19 am

what you do is making surealism an absolute, thats all.....a way of defining something but a very easy way...thats ok for me...

but surrealsim is not G.O.D (and is G.O.D), but by making surealism the absolute you kill all the other artforms including traditional surrealism itself, you can do so but I dont think the "macrocosm" will not listen to you, but it would be a mission :)

If you make surrealism G.O.D I will call you my prophet and master Aum

....

by **Joshua Burton** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:09 pm

I think moving out of meaning and in to disregard for meaning has a certain quality to it that I absolutely adore. It's interesting to witness the meaninglessness of words.

To abstract is to remove/move from reality, surreal is based on reality, expression is a picturing or obscuring of reality, impression captures moments of reality. Each have there own intentions; abstract to deconstruct the visible reality, expression to convey emotional realities, impression to confine small lengths of reality, surreal ... is actually the one that seems to be more accepting of infinite intention. Maybe I'm biased.

So we've found the common theme, we all have the same subject. All art is surreal because it's all potentially based on the same subject.

Now read this thread:
http://surrealartforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=156

beinArt International Surreal Art Forum

What is the difference between Surreal & Abstract?

What is the difference between Surreal & Abstract?

The raw sensory experience is what thrills people the most

Salt and sugar

I'm stupid in relative of what

Nature of real and unreal

Who is online

Art News

Last Rites Gallery 5th Anniversary Show.

CONJOINED 3: THE FINAL CHAPTER and Chet Zar signing "Black Magick: The Art of Chet Zar"

The Reckoning: An Interview with Christopher Ulrich