This illustration by Jon Whitcomb contrasts a creamy, flawless figure with a violent, abstract background.
Similarly, this illustration by Piotr Leśniak frames a meticulous drawing with a chaotic background:
Vivian Dehning's recent "photo illustration" in the New York Times covers a photograph of a woman with a wild crayon scribble.
Normally the elements of a picture are expected to work together, rather than clash in contumacious oppugnancy.
There are limitless ways for artists to combine opposites so that they work together to add useful contrast:
 |
| Norman Rockwell |
 |
| Austin Briggs |
Hard black line contrasted with soft watercolor can often be a productive combination of extremes.
 |
| Note how the color is flat but the line contributes volume |
 |
| Sempé uses black line sparingly in fields of pastel color |
However, sometimes the two extremes just sit side by side, yelling at each other. They aren't glued together by form, content or any of art's other epoxies. The artist just seems to enjoy the collision.
One of my cranky friends derides this kind of contrast as "empty" because he finds it devoid of purpose. Without a discernible expressive intent, he finds the contrast to be neither significant nor interesting.
The purpose of the random scribble in Vivian Dehning's "photo illustration," above, might be construed as a comment on the mistreatment of women in the photograph. This purpose, however, is hardly enough to save such a ridiculous image.
I don't claim to be ecstatic about either the Leśniak or the Whitcomb examples. Still I think it's worth considering the notion of "collision" as an aesthetic concept in and of itself. Abstract expressionism proved that not all collisions require an "intent" to be interesting.
Placing realism and abstraction side by side may make an unruly mess, but there is often "intent" to be found, even in purely abstract forms. Could placing freedom and control next to each other be viewed as a way of challenging the reason of each for being? Could their juxtaposition be a reminder that the realistic, controlled three dimensional portion is still, after all, just an illusion, a two dimensional fake no more trustworthy than the adjacent random mess? Or could the collision of the two extremes be a way of dissing the hard labor of the skillful extreme? A postmodernist attack on obsolete talents? An attempt to blow up conventional taste? It's worth looking for potential for artistic value, even in collisions.