A topic came up in the Wet Canvas Debates forum about how to describe and judge abstract art. Here's the answer I wrote off the top of my head. (Might write something more thoughtful soon. Or not.)
I just finished reading the neurobiologist Semir Zeki's book, Inner Vision, about interesting links between the neurobiology of vision, and art. He believes art and vision share a common purpose: to find out about the world. And that modern art evolved in order to discover and show more and more the essential, most important elements of the world. Whether or not you believe this is true, the book is quite interesting. Much of what he reports about how the brain really sees, is definitely relevant to making art. Also it's fascinating to me how modern artists' work correlates with LATER discoveries about the neurology of vision, just as they predated discoveries in physics.
So - the point of abstract art is to abstract from all the myriad possibilities in the visual field (or in the imagination, dreamworld, memories, or other inner life) - what's most important - or compelling, or emotionally arousing, or alive - depending on the artist's aims. I like Hans Hofmann's idea of searching for what's most REAL - and making the painting so the whole thing is dynamic, alive.
10:28:32 PM 
|
|
