Representational "vs." Non-Representational Art

There's been quite a bit of chatter lately on some textile art internet groups about what appears to be a growing trend: juror preference for non-representational over representational work.    The conversation started when an attendee at the Quilt=Art=Quilt show (which she thought was very striking) commented on her perception that there were very few representational pieces in the show.


To start, let's be clear on some definitions.  Because I can't possibly say it better, I'm going to borrow from Elizabeth Barton:

A quilt which strove to totally recreate a specific scene or photograph would be representational, one which took some elements from a scene and modified them would be abstract and one which had no reference whatsoever to anything in real life would be non-representational.

So, is it true?  Is there a preference for non-representational and abstract work over representational?

Without knowing the pool of entries, it's difficult to fault the jurors with having a bias.  Perhaps there simply weren't as many good representational works submitted as non-representational.  And, let's face it, even a Renoir would look out of place in a room full of Pollocks and Kandinskys, so can't you blame a juror for thinking the same in selecting a cohesive textile exhibit.

However, I have done a little bit of research over the past few days and I do think there's some merit to the statement that abstract and non-representational art is being shown more often in some recent exhibitions. To start, I reviewed the Art Quilt Elements catalog.  I know that there were over 600 pieces entered into that show.  Of the 50 which were selected, only three would qualify as representational.  The rest were predominantly non-representational, with about seven that could be considered abstract -- and they're pushing the definition to its limit.  

Then I looked up the artists who were accepted recently into Form, Not Function at the Carnegie.  The jurors received almost 400 entries and 31 were selected.  While I wasn't able to access pictures of all the selected works, I extrapolated from other artworks on artist websites as to what type of work the artist does.   There are certainly artists whose work uses identifiable human form (such as Shawn Quinlan), but they are highly stylized and abstracted, so only four artists that I could identify -- extrapolating from other works they've done -- might have a representational piece in the show.

Finally, I looked at Rayna Gillman's blog post about the recent Festival of Quilts in England. She notes that European textile artists are predominantly creating abstract and non-representational works and this was reflected in the show.  You can see that borne out in her pictures.  Hmmmm.......  

So what does this all mean for those artists whose voice speaks to them in representational terms?  Well, I don't think it means give up.  I think perhaps it means create more and better work and get it out there.... if that's what motivates you.  Some of the representational works I came across as I did my research had a social or political bent to it, but I don't think that's necessary to do good work.  This trend does suggest that we have to create art that does more than make a viewer say "oh how pretty".  It has to be thoughtful and evocative on several levels.  It has to give pause and pull a viewer in to consider and contemplate.   But then, isn't all good work supposed to? 

That's what I think right now, but I'd love to hear your comments and thoughts as well.  If I've missed something or misrepresented something, my apologies in advance and please be sure to let me know.