I just read this post…I will decline to enter the discusion present, because if I did I would probably set the board in to an uproar…knowing the way I go about things.
So I will just add a few definitions:
Abstract expressionism … is the art genre MTB seems to be actually referring to when he says Abstract painting. In fact I have seen the term abstract art misused about this place.
Abstract art…is accepted by the Art World as being the beginning of so-called Modern Art. Here it is widely accepted that a French painter David (can’t remember the whole name) 1770’s ish through to 1793 period is responsible. Abstract was considered a ‘staged’ composition. This is where all things superflouous to the story/theme were omitted in the composition. Gone were the never-ending peopled landscapes backdrops etc. A story was told in a simple manner. These paintings of David would not look like abstract paintings to us today. The main characters had to ‘hold’ the story. Now this seems to have changed overtime.
Abstract expressionism…began after WWII…and is predominantly concerned with splattering paint all over a canvas in some supposed order. I hate the stuff.
There is also Fauvism…some Fauvists interesting.
Now Expressionism ahh…the good stuff is wonderful.
I will say that to be able to piant or depict Abstract thought…throughout a composition, or as a standalone feeling are both wonderful to achieve.
To enhance the drawing or modelling one undertakes…one can learn so much more about themselves and about their art with abstract thought portrayed(no argument pointed at either person above).
However my Art History is a little rusty, so I hope I haven’t misled.
Don’t worry I do understand both points of view expounded in the posts above.
I take no sides.