Today I made a happy tangling, doing an exercise from Zentangle Primer using Shattuck, Jetties and Bales. Couldn´t resist to make the tangleation of Bales I learned from Martha Huggins. Here it is:
Jetties is a pattern consisting of orbs. Could be balls in the eyes of the observer and if so it could be representational. But the meaning of non-representational is something else. Abstract doesn´t mean there are no recognizable objects. The picture as whole is abstract and there is no intention to make it in an other direction. Maybe this Shattuck may look like a fence? If the observer think it is, than it is ok, but there is no intention to make a fence, the interpretation is in the observers eye.
In abstract art you find a lot of symbols, well known or only known by the artist. Patterns are used in symbolic ways. In zentangle this also happens, but it is always unpredictable, since there is no planning. Even if this was an exercise, I didn´t plan the outcome, but I decided to use these patterns as suggested in the exercise.
This tile is special in another way. Tanglers are using "chops" to sign their tiles. Till now I have used the signature I use on my paintings. But today I knew what my chop should look like! It took some time, but here it was!
Another example of non-representational drawing:
I tangled the cover of the notebook I got from my granddaughter a couple of days ago. Tangles used: Showgirl (Vicki Bassett) and Well Well (Zt). Looking at it I could make an interpretation and speak about whirling feathers or something else, but it still is non-representational.
I love the possibilities non-representational pictures, abstract pictures gives to me: It can be anything and I never get tired of looking at them. And I never get tired of making them, since the focus is mainly on the process and the process is so liberating!