We’ve all heard the criticisms: “People paint abstracts because they can’t draw,” and “My four year old could have done that.” I even heard the art-nazi host of Oregon Art Beat, K C Cowan, make the former statement and she should know better than this! Of course, the fact that she hosts a show about art doesn’t mean she knows jack about art, does it? No, it’s just public television.Obviously she has no understanding of abstraction whatsoever, and that is truly pathetic.
Let’s get a couple of things out of the way, okay? First of all, “art” is defined as “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture.” Art is not limited to a particular style or subject matter. Which leads us to the other point here: if you don’t like it just accept that YOU don’t like it. A work does not transform itself into “not art” because of your taste/opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and it is worth exactly what we all paid for it.
I am not exclusively an abstract painter, but my abstract work is far and away the most difficult and challenging of my painting projects. Creating the exact work of my vision can be frustrating in the extreme, and anyone who says that I must do these difficult works because I can’t draw is an idiot – or at least knows nothing of my body of work.
Drawing is an entirely separate skill; what is required for abstraction is a new way of thinking. As for the halfwit who might say their kid could do it, I say, bring it on! People make statements like this can’t produce, because while anyone including your no-talent kid can slather some color on paper, it still doesn’t meet the criteria of good art until it is arranged and juxtaposed so as to produce an appropriate mind effect.
Now this is the key: If – and only if -abstraction is done very well, we have in abstract painting the purest and truest interface between visual arts and human consciousness. It is the bleeding-edge of art and science melded together. Most people don’t understand this: They may assume that if they don’t understand a work of art, there must be something wrong with it. But my knowledge of the workings of the human mind has led me to envision the interactive nature of visual input in the form of matrices of colors and shapes, with the brain – and thus human consciousness. You see, it isn’t what the painting “represents” that is important – unlike impressionism -but what it does.
Up until now, you didn’t know how or why abstract art occasionally induced strong emotional reactions. You may have dismissed this effect because you didn’t understand it. Now you are beginning to see the truth: Good abstract art forces the brain to create new neural pathways to try to fathom the unfathomable. To brain wave patterns emerge. The colors, the lines, and the patterns – all from seemingly beyond the world as it is understood – cause the activation of new neural pathways by the millions.
This is the fourth generation of art theory: a schema of intuitive action and juxtapositions of concrete patterns in a holistic approach resulting in a convergence of brain science and art – of architectures and spatial relationships with neurons and dopamine. It isn’t just art, it is mind programming. And that is what makes abstract art the most powerful force that the creative mind can unleash.
It’s another way of thinking about abstract art. The effect exists in the human mind but the definition of it comes from little old me. So when you hear this information someday from some inflated ego with a with some letters after his name who tries to tell you he just figured this out, you’ll know from whence this information really came.
You can find further in-depth discussions about abstraction and my new theory elsewhere on this site, starting with the Abstract Paintings page. Once again, though, we come back to the whole conflation of ones subjective tastes and opinions with objective reality. Those who argue any side in this discussion are in effect demanding that I acknowledge that chocolate is the only true flavor of ice cream worth considering, and that vanilla isn’t really ice cream at all. I realize that they fail to understand this, and that’s why I don’t really want to bother engaging those who are unable to see the world or art in any perspective bigger than themselves.
— Chriss Pagani
I found this site from another site. It’s easy to get lost on the net.
Look, the previous poster is full of crap. While anyone can make random lines or splotches of colors, only an artist can coordinate colors and space to create a thing of beauty.
You are right on, Pagani, when you talk about the power of abstract art. Authoritative types fear abstract art and want to destroy it. KEEP FIGHTING!
WELL SAID!!! It can be incredibly frustrating to hear someone comment about how simple abstract is and anyone can do it. That is so untrue!! I have to agree with you that abstract painting is by far the most difficult to produce and coordinate and I’m speaking from my own experience.
I am a second year student at York U, for visual arts; drawing and painting. The single largest problem with art education is caused by the modernist movement. Most Universities only teach abstract or conceptual art. This is truly pathetic, and I will tell you why. You have artists who are being forced to paint abstractly who have never been trained to draw what they see. It is the equivalent of a hockey player who does not know how to skate.
I will be attending the Toronto Academy of Realist Art. They will provide me with formal art training that is lacking at the university level. I strongly suggest you google the Art Renewal Center; as Art Renewal is a 21st Century Art Movement while abstractionism was 20th century art movement.
Simply put, not only is abstract art detrimental to young artists as it stunts their training, but it is indisputably no longer new. The 21st Century art world is moving back to representational art because it can more effectively communicate ideas that abstract art simply cannot do.
Additionally, (and I am speaking from my University experience) nearly every student at my school who creates abstract paintings cannot draw. We’re talking 200+ “abstract” artists who can not draw out of maybe 202 abstract artists at my school. Look up Art Renewal. There are people today who are creating real art. Stop this oppressive abstract bullshit now.
Abstract art is bullshit and don’t let anyone tell you different. An elephant can do it in less than five minutes. I know some people argue that the human brain is unfathomable. They say that just to make you feel superior to my elephant example. Painting does require real skills. Experience teaches you technique. Light and shadows are nothing but that but a skilled painter will not give two people examining his/her painting walk away with two different “interpretation” but a single concrete emotion. Splashing colors on top of each other is child’s play. That just makes people wonder what the hell you were thinking and you did it because you don’t know how to observe your own mind/emotion. Smoke some weed and get some real inspiration, because I believe bud helps you sslllooooww down, so you can examine yourself-your mind-your environment and your feelings. Before you argue about drug use, ancient cilivization used it to see ‘visions’ and drew that on the cave walls. Second: How many great painters where consider crazy? Art isn’t just about painting. How many musicians were high? Were they as good as the sober ones? They tapped into something that isn’t real and made it real through emotions. The Government can restrict that, but we’re just animals and after us is a beast, an elephant that does abstract ‘art’. My last thought: If you don’t want to do drugs then don’t sleep. Same effect. I bet you didn’t know that. Good day.
[BLOG SPAM REMOVED]
Not Enough weed? Damnit I knew that sack was to light,I should’ve known. Well Pagani, or should I call you big one, am I onto something or just stuck in a rut? Where do I find enlightenment to your great art?
Lack of readily definable meaning…causing your brain to work harder…hmm bourbon…brass balls…funny curves and some cheap perfume. Woops lost my train of thought.
I must understand good art. I love art just not abstract art because I see it as Brass Balls because, as you stated, that’s what they are. So as it turns out, abstract art is not readily available.
I’m off to read your article. Should I take bourbon as shots or sip it?
I have repeatedly tried to “get” abstract expressionism. I am a NYer,so MOMA, The Whitney and others were always accessible. Stella, Ken Nolan, et. al., I have seen their stuff. Never liked it–the only exception were some big drippy canvasses by Barnett Newman at the Guggenheim that I thought were “pretty.” But nothing like what Hopper or Demuth can do forme–not even in the same universe.
Look man,if you have to keep expaining and justifying it ain’t art.
Art is subjective. Those with influence, power and money are able to reach the public. They can promote and implant concepts, opinions and isms. To say people don’t like abstract art because they are too dumb to understand it seems a bit pretentious to me. They just don’t like it. There are, I’m sure, plenty of rocket scientists who don’t like it. Also you don’t need to be a genius to make it either. Every artists needs and wants to be appreciated, but to what degree? There are some of us who buy into the illusion created by profiteers as to what success is and what good art is or isn’t. Wouldn’t it be nice if people knew what they liked no-matter what anyone else said, big or small.? I personally like and dislike art of all isms.
Abstract- Expression IS the highest form of the visual arts. Music, being the highest of all the arts.
Everybody is differnt when it comes to art. Some people may say that their is only one kind of good art and that is when the artist captures a beautiful scene on a peice of paper or canvas. I belived that way for a long time. I couldnt get meaning from an abstract art. I belive its has to do with where and how I was brought up. I was brought up in a hard-working rural area. I lived on a farm. I blame my upbringing that made me so ignorant. I just didnt know that art was supposed to have meaning. We’re not tought these things. We were tought to feed the animals, do your homework and to be a good human being. I can’t imagine my dad telling me how art has these meanings and that we are supposed to be open mined about them while we were raking up horse manure. I’m not saying that it can’t happen but, that some of us people are ignorant to your art, as you might be ignorant to some of the things other people do.
I agree with the difficulty of abstract art. It seems much easier to “copy” art from nature, or an outside source, but to take a thought or idea out of your head and make a visual picture of it is so difficult. I never can quite capture my thoughts or imagination in a way that makes me happy.
Need sponser and pltform to create and sell new discoveries about human mind through painting
I know abstract art isn’t an excuse for unskilled artists…
I know they believe it’s something profound…
and it might just be…
However, for those of us that don’t know the rules to the complex color/position theory game you’re playing, it just doesn’t look very impressive.
If there’s a subconscious shift going on, it’s getting blocked out by my conscious “What the hell is that?” attitude.
Well, Alex, that’s fine! “What the hell is that” is a reaction, after all, and generally speaking that’s what abstract artists are going for. And this highlights a difference between various forms of representational art and abstract art: The realist’s work screams, “Look at me! Look at my wonderful draftsman-like skills. See how well I can copy a photograph?” The abstract artist’s work says, “Look at this thing… what is it?”
If you want to make a living at art, you probably will need to be an impressionist. People like art where they can say, “boy, that guy is good.” With “good” in this case meaning, the work looks kind of like a photograph. Representational art consumes …oh, about 95 percent of the available gallery space in America.
If you want to make people look think about the art instead of thinking about you, then abstract art may be the thing. The fact that few understand it is part of its beauty. Most likely, nobody will ever know who you are. You might sell some work to corporate clients – they tend to like the mystery and ‘non-statement’ kind of statement that abstract art makes – but you’ll likely live and die in obscurity.
It’s a lifestyle choice.
I agree with Pagani for the majority, however I will add my personal experience/perspective with abstract and representational art. In my conception of abstract art the term “expressionism” is the key to understanding any reason for the purpose in the art. With the more famous abstract artist, Pollock being the best example, the process in creation is a process of visually representing a continuing stream of consciousness. In zen Buddhism, meditation at its basic level is the process of passively observing a stream of consciousness. This can to some degree be said that the creation of abstract art on a non-representational and expressive plane is a process of meditation, whereas the point of intuitive guidance is impulsion without obstruction of the conscious mind. The reason for this goes back to psychoanalysis (which most “real” abstract artist were heavily involved with). The process of this “meditation” in the creation of abstract art which represents a continuing stream of consciousness that is not conscious thinking means that it is actually a representation of a continuous stream of unconscious processes. This in turn means that it can be reflected upon in the process of psychoanalysis. To take this further, the process of psychoanalysis uses symbols (which can be represented in a plethora of ways including experiences) to “understand” the origin of these unconscious processes. These symbols are translated by the individual in his/her reflection of their experiences in life from a individual perspective input only and the psychiatrist being a mentor/help guide the direction of where to look for reflection. When this is successful this in therapy leads to an explanation to the individual the reason and origin for a number of complexes and psychological disorders. The abstract art itself in completion is a symbol of a unconscious symptom or state of mind, and in that case is a symbol of unconscious experience that includes material worth individual reflection. Think of abstract art more as a dream that has been fragmented into reality. Because of this being a symbol of an individual mind state, it becomes meaningful mostly to the artist and this is where the controversy begins to creep into its shadow. The problem is not abstract art but (in american society) the ignorance and naivety of mind which the majority is sadly plagued with. Most of the viewers that see great works likes Pollock’s (again) do not have the insight to be able to derive their individual experience of what the symbol represents to them, they just “like it” but they aren’t sure why, and it makes them feel strange. This is mostly due to the way american society has been conditioned. This naivety of the viewer can be shown as to why the media and advertising is so effective, it acts on an unconscious level and so you think “oh, I’m hungry” or “I’m thirsty” when you see a mcdonalds or coca cola advertisement. In saying that, the work itself should not be considered to be only meaningful to only the artist. Instead the purpose is to expand the awareness of the viewer to a higher state of consciousness. This, to me means that not only is abstract art, “art” (more like Abstract Surrealism art) but I feel that in this perspective, it has transcended the purpose of “Art” in evolution into something which has a much higher purpose then aethetics. Initiating the movement of unconscious processes through the visual system to be interpreted in individual perspective of total conscious system re-evaluation. Seems like a much more purposeful mission statement than communicating a particular message (which will only be interpreted in a limited number of ways as opposed to infinite).
I am a realistic artist, but I have worked in abstract on occasion. I create my landscapes mostly from my imagination, however, I have painted scenes from places I have been. Just taking a picture does not capture the feeling and mood that I felt when I was there. Creating a good realistic painting captures the feeling that a photo just is not able to do as well. Anyway, I am frustrated by the comment that someone on here made, ‘that it is easier to copy from nature then to paint abstract art’. I feel to do either one well takes great skill! I would like to see that person paint the way I do easily! Anyway, I have seen a lot of abstract I did not like at all, but from time to time I see something that stands out. With those pieces I have seen detail with abstraction and the movement and textures were interesting. I would however suggest to any new artist, to start with realistic and then after you feel pleased with your abilities move to abstract if you want. The abstract art will be much better for it. As an artist I respect other artists more if they can do both! I paint more realistic because that is what sells in my neck of the woods. There are a lot of people who simply want something they can relate to and that is pleasing to look at. Why is there so much abstract that is unpleasing? But yet when I see a good pleasing abstract it really stands out! Thoughts?
Ian, I don’t have any basic disagreements with what you have said. I think there is a lot of abstract art that is “unpleasing” because it’s much harder to do than people think. There is this tendency with abstract art for people to say, “My kid could do that” …well, the answer is ‘maybe’ but more than likely your kid wouldn’t do it very well. There are rules to creating a great abstract painting – things about depth, balance, values – that are much harder to divine or intuit. Everyone knows a pretty sunset when they see it; an abstract painting that draws the viewer in has things going for it that are much harder to articulate.
Love this discussion. I have recently taken an interest in certain abstract works. Some of the works of Basquiat, Kandinsky, and more recently Shawn Mcnulty to name a few really intrigue me. Looking at these works does something for me that representational art doesn’t do. Looking at some of these works give me a pleasant mental jolt like a good cup of coffee. Sometimes the arrangement of color, forms, texture, etc. is so intriguing I almost forget to breathe. For furnishing the walls of my own home, I find something uniquely tasteful about using some of my favorite abstract pieces to go along with my more representational ones. I have nothing against flowers, landscapes, and bowls of fruit but I wish my local art scene had more art that provided an alternative to the sometimes mundane reproduction of the reality I am so familiar with.
great comments and post…may I add, as an expressor of the abstract, that the concept of what we think we see is not what we actually see, remains conceptual unless actually investigated. Artists who seek to learn how to draw what they see, are fooled point blank by money makers….and thats the old approach. That the word is the object….false.
The new approach which actually isnt new at all, but rather new in the sence that the info is more readily available, is that what you actually see is not what you actually see. Abstraction is the closest we come to in terms of seeing what you actually see. And thats what makes it so unique. It also comes about through a kind of looking through all the bs the brain has been taught is the world we know.
Right on brother. I used to be the ones saying abstract art is fucking lame until.. i did my own abstract and man that shit aint easy. Its deep and personal, and those who cant understand that dont take the time to look at it. Some art looks like a two year old did it for real but someone out there can see the meaning. There is major meaning to abstract art and Im glad I can see that now.
“The realist’s work screams, “Look at me! Look at my wonderful draftsman-like skills. See how well I can copy a photograph?†”
Some artists exclusively copy from photograph, but they become a slave to it, and most good ones don’t copy from photographs like a slave. There is a lot to copying photographs in representational art- it’s about learning composition, science of perspective and lighting. And it is about telling a story, creating worlds, creating a mood, which is the true purpose of representational art.
Photographs are just references, don’t be a slave to it. It is a tool for beginner students.Remember, Da Vinci didn’t have any photographs..Da Vinci studied perspective and the science of light with a passion.
It is a common misconception, and a common reason why people think that representation gets boring..well if all I do is copying photographs, it really becomes brainless and boring too!
Here is why abstract art (more specifically, non-representational abstract art) fails utterly, and is a dead end. Note that I limit this to non-representational abstract art, such as Pollock’s splatters, most of DeKooning, Rothko, and the like. Picasso’s “abstracts” such as Guernica, contain recognizable and identifiable images, and so I don’t include them in this comment.
The first question an artist must ask him/herself is this: Who is this piece of art for — is it for me, to work out some ideas I have, or is it for a viewing public?
If the answer is, “It’s just for me, I don’t care what anyone else thinks of it,”, then fine. Put the painting in your attic and don’t invite anyone to look at it.
Once, however, the artist bangs a nail into a wall, and hangs a painting on it, the artist is saying to the world, “Hey, look at this. I have something I want you all to see. I am saying something special here that I need to communicate.”
And if it is the intention of the artist to communicate, then the success of the artist and his work must be measured against that intention.
If I write a novel about a detective in the 1040’s who is following clues, to discover the perpetrator of a murder, this novel may be judged in several ways — its literary merits (or lack), its choices of language, the richness (or not) of its characters, the originality of its plot, and so on. But at its most basic level, it must be judged on the basis of whether I have communicated to my reading audience what I mean to.
If readers read my 1940’s detective novel, and are uncertain whether it is about a 1940’s detective, or possibly about werewolves in space in the future, or possibly a romance story between two fish, then it is fair to say that I have failed (even though readers who understand a story may reasonably debate about a story’s nuance — some may think the detective a good guy, or a bad guy, or morally ambiguous).
Similarly, an artist’s work, when displayed publicly, must be measured against whether the artist has communicated what he intends to.
If an artist makes an abstract painting that is inspired by a picnic at the beach, meaning to communicate the joy he experienced that day, but the viewer sees it as a warlike explosion, then it can fairly be said that the artist has failed.
In this regard, I submit, abstract, non-representational art, is invariably a failure.
Scott. I agree with you that when an artist hangs up a painting, he is saying to the world that he is trying to communicate something, and if a painting has no power to communicate or connect to its viewer, it fails. but it is important to remember that we do not only connect to recognizable objects, we respond psychologically to different colors and aesthetically pleasing designs. As stated in the article, “Good abstract art forces the brain to create new neural pathways to try to fathom the unfathomable”. mythology and fables are an important part of our lives, they speak to us symbolically according to our needs at the time. Not every person who gains an insight from a fable or myth will be interpreting it the way the fable was intended, but that doesn’t make the fable a failure. Mark Rothko said, “A picture lives by companionship, expanding and quickening in the eyes of the sensitive observer, it dies by the same token”. Representational or not, if the painting evokes feeling in the viewer, i believe it deserves a little respect.
“Similarly, an artist’s work, when displayed publicly, must be measured against whether the artist has communicated what he intends to.”
As a painter who’s worked in a nonrepresentational mode for many years, this strikes me as a huge oversimplification: just pick a thesis, paint an illustration of that thesis, hang it on the wall with an artist’s statement that explains the thesis (because how else would you, the viewer, have a basis against which to measure the painting’s “success” or “failure”?), and wait for the verdict from the masses. If you want to treat what’s essentially an open-ended process, which can spread across dozens or even hundreds of pieces of artwork, as a pass/fail situation, fine… but that’s just not how it works.
Your choice of metaphor (the detective novel) doesn’t do the job here, mostly because novels require reading — which is itself the mental unpacking of three or four levels of abstraction: from perceived interior and exterior realities into concepts, then into sounds/speech, then into readable lines and circles on a page. Representational painters choose to translate their perceptions in fewer steps, and abstract or nonobjective painters in even fewer. It’s not a matter of laziness (when approached honestly) so much as choosing a level of abstraction at which to focus.
Try a different metaphor: when you walk through a flower-garden, you’re probably not expecting the garden to justify itself — you’re using your senses (in conjunction with your intellect, or maybe not… it’s not mandatory) and moving through an infinite number of combinations of colors, scents, textures, sounds and tactile experiences. Your brain may be quiet, or you may be identifying various species of plants, picking a direction in which to wander, thinking you could use a cold drink, or whatever. The point is, you’re present and experiencing what’s around you in a discrete (singular) way.
Some might say, “But a garden isn’t anything like a painting!”. Yeah, that’s right, it’s just a bunch of plants and rocks and mulch and dirt (let’s call them “materials”) that someone deliberately arranged into certain configurations and structures (let’s say “compositions”), for the enjoyment, contemplation and perhaps enlightenment of whoever uses it. Hmm. Too bad there wasn’t a sign right outside the gate that took care of transmitting the “meaning” or “point” or “purpose” of the place directly into a visitor’s brain… to save them the trouble of having to actually walk around inside. What you’re doing in that garden could be described as a constantly-shifting spectrum of translation or abstraction, in which you decide what to focus on, how much attention to pay, and what sense you take with you. The gardener has edited your possibilities for you by choosing a layout, a palette, a design, a path, and borders. What you do with it is really up to you; but you absolutely won’t experience it if you don’t open the gate and go in.
Abstract art takes a certain degree of bravery and faith to make (to make well), and all kinds of conscious deliberation. If you don’t make this kind of art yourself, it’s understandably hard to accept this proposition on faith. But once you start to realize that an abstract painting (a good one… and there are a billion ways in which they can be made badly) is less about making a “picture of something” and more about making an object which can contain a set of experiences — which can hopefully be accessed by a willing viewer — it can change the way in which you approach the thing. Eventually, perhaps, this kind of experiential exercise can even change the way in which you inhabit the space around you. That’s why abstract art continues to get made, and (I think) why people still bother to interact with it.
Sounds kind of woo-woo and hokey, doesn’t it? But if you think I’m making it all up, go walk in the woods or along a stretch of beach (or anyplace you feel undistracted) and try noticing things without immediately naming them or thinking of their “purpose.” It’s harder than it sounds. Now try making a piece of art which can somehow not only contain that effort but make even a flash of it light up in someone else. You may, in fact, “fail.” In fact, you almost certainly will… at least for awhile. But as with practicing soccer, playing an instrument, or learning to relate to a person you love, it will hopefully be a process of “failing forward” toward greater success later. If you care to keep it up, that is. The circumstances will be about the same for the viewer of your art… except that the viewer has the luxury of standing outside the whole process and insisting on criteria that he or she has no way of knowing are appropriate to the work, unless the artist, curator or gallerist has written it all out for them. (Represented in lines and circles and shapes that are symbols for meaning and speech and perception, remember. A level of abstraction inviting you to translate and make sense.)
Thank you for your thoughtful response, “A”, but yes it does sound “woo-woo” and hokey.
Why do you propose that it takes a certain amount of bravery to make abstract art? I keep seeing and hearing artists say that, but I see no evidence for the proposition that making abstract art is “risky” or brave.
In fact, I submit that making abstract art is less risky than making any other kind:
1) Although I have seen movies, plays and novels reviewed negatively and positively, I have virtually NEVER seen a negative review of an abstract art show. I suspect that this is because of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” phenomenon. A critic’s career can be made by being the first one to recognize new artist “X” as the “genius” he is later discovered to be. On the other hand, if you negatively review artist “X”, and he still gains favor in the art community, the critic will be seen as having failed.
On the other hand, representational art can be given bad reviews, because there are ways of actually judging its merits (likeness, etc.)
You use soccer or playing an instrument as metaphors, but these fail as well. In soccer, there are absolute ways of measuring success or failure, (goals, wins, losses, etc.). In music, too, there are measures of success (Pitch, tone, key, rhythm). A band member who is off key, or out of tempo with his band mates sticks out like a sore thumb.
There have been many studies done, in which even art aficionados have difficulty distinguishing works of abstract “masters” from those of children or chimps.
On the other hand, no one would mistake a child, banging around on a piano, for the playing of an experienced pianist.
I think that abstract (non-figurative) art is unique among all enterprises in its lack of standards.
Non-representational abstract art creators and acolytes are notable for their unwillingness to engage in conversation.
This is hardly surprising, given the nature of the “art” in which they are interested. The essence of non-representational abstract art is: (1)Make something obscure; (2)Hang it up.; (3) Wait to see what happens. (4)If anyone questions, or claims not to understand the value of this “art”, do not defend it, and never ever acknowledge that perhaps you, the artist, has failed to communicate. Blame the failure on the observer — that Philistine who is too limited to understand.
It appears that those who believe in pursuing steps 1-4 in art, engage in conversations following just this same pattern.
Paggani: Well, you’re starting off with the wrong tone … Your taste in art does not represent the definition of art; it is just how YOU feel about it. Everyone has an opinion.
Scott: So, first of all, what’s wrong with my tone?
Second, and more important, when you (or anyone) says “Well, that’s your opinion…” that is simply a way of evading discussion which (and this has been my point) is precisely what art people seem to relish doing.
Of course we’re all entitled to our opinions. It is simply the case, though, that some opinions are objectively worse (more ill founded than others).
I can look at that animal over there in the corner — the animal that people uniformly and customarily (in English) call a “cat”, and say, well, I don’t care what you say, because in my opinion, that’s a horse. If I did so, I suspect you would have something more to say than merely “Well, that’s just YOUR opinion.”
Now, of course, I’d be free to have that opinion, but it’d be a stupid opinion to have.
While people may have differing opinions as to which horse is the fastest, or which cat is the cuddliest, few will differ on the definitional fact of which animal is a horse, and which is a cat.
Similarly, people may differ about who is the best, say, baseball player. Few people watching a game will have any difficulty distinguishing a game of baseball from something else (a game of whist, or a boardroom meeting).
Art, however seems so utterly devoid of standards that unlike any enterprise, anyone can call any slapdash effort “art” and, if challenged will respond, “You don’t think it’s art?…well that’s YOUR opinion.”
When an enterprise offers no way of distinguishing “X” from “non-X” (art from non-art, science from non-science, bowling from non-bowling), and really not even a decent way of distinguishing good from bad, one can say that the enterprise suffers a very severe flaw.
I can think of no enterprise that suffers so completely from this lack of standards (the inability to distinguish “art” from “non-art”, or good art from bad) as the visual arts, and more specifically, non-representational abstract art.
Abstract Art or the painting itself is… Bullshit. The painter and how he explains it is what puts value in blots of paint on canvas.
I have never ever seen an abstract painting that makes me say “WOW!” I have seen many representational paintings that make me say that however. As a painter I have done both and let me tell you, making an abstract painting is way easier. You need no drawing skills in order to do it. In fact those skills might actually get in the way. Can a child paint an abstract painting as sophisticated as those selling in top New York galleries? No. But I could teach a grown adult to paint that well in less than a week.
That’s a view, certainly. I’d just leave it to people to decide what they like – for themselves. There is no right or wrong when it comes to taste.