I'm sure that half of the visitors that run into abstract art in an art museum will tell you that they themselves could have painted the given piece. The other half might stop and look a little while longer to try and figure out what the artist is trying to tell the observer. What emotions are evoked when standing in front of an artwork that doesn't immediately give away its intention?
What makes an artwork 'abstract'? Abstract art does not aim to represent reality in a faithful way; reality becomes subjective in a representation that goes beyond the visible. Abstract art uses color, shapes, and form to communicate an idea. Making sure an idea or emotion is transferred from the painting to the audience lies at the core of abstract art. Many abstract paintings lack a message indeed but still successfully evoke an emotion.
What is heard most often is that abstract art is a made-up, a 'pseudo-intellectual' category for unskilled artists to acquire recognition in the industry. Yet technique is not the goal, it is about provoking emotion and thought, and challenging perspectives.
It is quite limiting to define art solely by what others cannot do. I think when it comes to art, especially abstract art, people love to say that they could easily do a better job than the artist. Then why not give it a go? Why sit in the comfort of unexplored potential? Maybe abstract art could scratch the itch of self-expression but judgment is getting in the way. It is more comforting to believe that one technically could paint something instead of actually trying and facing a potentially hard reality check.
I think when people make judgments about the nature of art, they forget that art, or more precisely visual arts, is a category and not a synonym for creative perfection. Art is not a pre-judged and virtuous club that is only accessible once a critic made an exhaustive judgment. Abstract paintings fall under the category 'visual arts', but that does not mean they're necessarily good or bad. Anyone can create art, but whether or not that art is well-made, is in the eye of the beholder.
Similarly, science-fiction and classical books both fall under the category of literary arts; yet in this case categorisation does not come with the same value judgements as with visual arts. The same goes for classical music, music that makes you feel emotions without explicitly telling you a set message through lyrics.
Another important factor that viewers need to keep in mind is that the historical context of an art-movement is crucial in understanding the intentions behind an artwork. Art usually captures how a society changes their way of thinking.
Abstract art, and especially Abstract Expressionism, really took off after the Second World War. Artists wanted to process post-war traumas and the Great Depression from the 1930s. Abstract Expressionism allowed artists to reflect their individual psyches on to a canvas.
But how do you process human nature, when the aftermath of the war revealed the dark side of human irrationality?
Three of many abstract artists especially caught my eye.
Kandinsky was born in 1866 in Moskau. He is widely regarded as the founding father of abstract art. In the 1910s he started to see colors as possessing spiritual and psychological powers. He pioneered pure abstractions, and made use of vibrant colors, geometric shapes, and dynamic lines. He believed that art should not have to represent the physical world but could also reflect spirituality.
A condition called synesthesia, where senses like sound and vision can overlap, allowed him to visualize colors while listening to sounds, or hear the colors he was using. This allowed a deeper connection with his paintings, a connection most won't ever experience, and yet he gave us a glimpse of it in his paintings.
Pollock was born in 1912 in Wyoming. He is mostly known for his 'drip technique' and his 'action painting', where he was pouring and splashing paint on to a canvas laid on the ground. The paintings are nonobjective and huge in scale. What was most important for Pollock was the physical act and the energy of painting.
The finished product displays the process of the creation, a result of what one might call a dance. The canvas becomes an arena in which the event of painting is more important than the recreation of reality.
Rothko was born in 1903 in Dvisnk, Russian Empire (now known as Daugavpils, Latvia). He is most notably known for his 'color field painting'. His canvases are large, simplified fields where the color dominates. He wanted to achieve a feeling of the sublime when standing in front of the paintings.
The canvas is meant to be looked at from a distance of 46cm to experience the effect as intended. The viewer would be enveloped and virtually caught in the painting, creating a larger-than-life effect. The technique of applying the layered color rectangles evokes an intimate feeling.
It goes to show that behind every abstract painting there is a distinct story, a story that is reactionary of a distinct point in time. If you ask me, Abstract Expressionism is not only, and undoubtedly, art but good art at that.
So next time you see an abstract painting in a museum and think an artwork does not deserve its spot there, maybe look a little while longer. Look at the colors, the shapes, and the scale of the painting. How does the painting make you feel? Are you bored, confused, or do you feel calmer? You don't have to like it or approve the techniques but you shouldn't dismiss and artwork because it looks 'easy'. That would dismiss the entire point of art.
Abstract art is asking what else paintings could be, besides realistic landscapes and accurate portraits. Kandinsky goes beyond the visible, Pollock turned the act of painting itself into art, and Rothko shows how colors can completely engulf you.
Perhaps anyone can create abstract art, as a matter of fact no one is discouraging you from trying. Freedom of artistic expression is always better than creative stagnation.
