Winding Up to a Conclusion

(Note; I use the word "abstract" in this post as a synonym for "non-representational" art, that is, art that doesn't depict or represent any object. In truth, all visual art involves abstraction, but I use the word here as a less cumbersome way of saying "non-representational" - T.J.)

The topic of this post brought me back to a series I authored at Jimmy Akin's blog, on how I understand modern abstraction in terms of where it fits in the broad movement of art history.

In retrospect, I see that project was too great a stretch for a layman and average schlub like myself. I have absolutely zero credentials as either a philosopher or art historian. I am a working artist (Masters Degree, thanks) not that widely read or traveled. What I can do is talk very honestly about art from my own non-expert perspective and hope that this becomes a useful bit of grist for the mill. I'll begin with a little background that might help explain why it has taken me so long to finish this series of posts.

A commercial art client with whom I worked for years had a very large abstract painting hanging in his office. It was dreadful - the kind of thing one would buy at a discount furniture store - a mass produced vomitous mess of cream and "earth tones". It was bad in every way that a painting can be bad. The abstract equivalent of a black velvet Elvis.. I saw this painting off and on for years, and one day the undeniable bad-ness of it got me thinking; I had seen a lot of other abstract paintings that were much better than this one. If they really were better, I thought, what made them better? If we can talk at all about "bad" and "good" abstract art, that almost proves there must be something worthwhile in the good abstract art, doesn't it?

Where I had been all set to consign abstract art to the dustbin, I decided to hold off and rethink my position. I mulled things over for quite a while, and ended up reaffirming my first intuitive response to abstraction (that it is a subset of decorative art), while at the same time developing a genuine appreciation of abstract art in its proper place. I can now say that there are a number of pieces of abstract art that I think are successful, interesting, even engaging... just not what I consider to be great art, for reasons I'll get to below. One of the things great art does is move the viewer, and I have never once been moved by a piece of abstract art. I don't see how that works.

There is, of course, the real possibility that I may just be missing something, that I am a thick-skulled, irrecoverable rube - what C.S. Lewis called a "trousered ape" - who simply lacks the imagination, the emotional depth and psychological complexity to plumb the mysteries of abstract art. That's fine. I'll admit the possibility... but it's not for lack of honest effort.

I have looked at and thought hard about abstract art for years. In some circles - circles I occasionally run in - verbalizing a lack of sufficient enthusiasm or appreciation for abstract art is a social blunder on the level of making fun of the handicapped - much worse, in fact (in the latter case, one could always pull a Mel Gibson and claim it was the booze talking). This is just not something a sophisticated and civilized person is ever supposed to say... particularly an artist. It will change what people think of you. It will cost you work and connections and references. I once knew an art history professor who was denied tenure partly because (he seemed certain) he had spoken well of Norman Rockwell.

I'm convinced that many people, especially in the art world, never say what they really think about abstract art because they are keenly aware of the social stigma attached to such opinions. They are frightened to death of being shut out and denied opportunities, of being thought of as ignorant hicks. But it is only by moving beyond this stigma and speaking plainly that we can begin to have a real conversation and honestly evaluate the benefits and detriments of the modernist movement in art, which began over one hundred years ago. We are in a unique position in history (the information age) that allows us to calmly and rationally toss out the bad and retain the good when it comes to the visual arts. We need desperately to get about this work.  We need especially to develop an aesthetic of beauty that resonates with the modern world. That is our job as artists.

Next - my thoughts on the good and bad of modern abstract art.

 

Comments

I generally agree with you about non-objective, abstract art. Although much of it can be beautiful like Pollock and Rothko, ultimately it is merely decorative. Especially when it is divorced from the theories behind it. Have you ever read The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm? Alain Besancon makes the case, which I found convincing, that 20th century abstraction is actually the latest outbreak of iconoclasm. I've also felt abstraction is a form of Manicheism: denying the goodness of material things and affirming the goodness of the spirit. While there is a bit of irony in that abstract art is totally about the materials, the elimination of the representation of the material world supposedly ends up with a more pure spiritual painting. It is the incarnation, the affirmation of matter that allows us to paint the face of Jesus, the image of the unseen God, as well as celebrate the created world by representing it in paint on canvas. Thanks be to God!

[Matt]

Kudos Tim, you know I'm on your side on this one. At least the scene in Architecture is slowly changing. We might be the last discipline to latch on to a new style, but we're never shy about jettisoning an old one! Maybe the same Slow Food, quasi-New Urbanist movement that is bringing humanism back to architecture will make its way into the art world. At least I hope so.

Keep sticking your neck out!

[Jim Janknegt]

The previous comment was mine. I didn't mean for it to be anonymous. Jim

[The Aesthetic Elevator]

Ah, back to it I see. Fabulous!

See my post earlier this week about delegation of art. In it I posited that concept is more important than craft in contemporary art. If concept is indeed more important than craft (which I think would be easy to affirm), I can easily see how abstract or non-representational art proliferates.

There are corners of the art world that are "rebelling" as it were. Last year I noted on my blog a group in the Northwest that gathered to learn classical painting technique.

Saying that the importance of concept is the only reason for the proliferation of abstraction, however, is almost guaranteed to be overly simplistic. I wouldn't be surprised if such umptions in the art world aren't also proffered by other parts of the culture, whatever they may be. The use of found objects, for instance, could be a reaction to a wasteful culture where. In a society addicted to cheap, mass-produced goods it's very easy to find and utilize (visually and creatively) discarded and disregarded objects. Joel Armstrong does this when creating his small sculptures. The reuse of these found objects adds significant depth and interest to his abstract works.

[bill912]

Is that...um...artwork(?) titled "Explosion in the Paint Section"?

[TurretinFan]

If someone wanted to be contentious, they could point out that likewise, all art is, in a sense, representational, though not in the sense you meant.

[Tim J.]

"If someone wanted to be contentious, they could point out that likewise, all art is, in a sense, representational, though not in the sense you meant."

Well, they could *assert* that, but they would also need to demonstrate how it was so. Being that a number of artists insist strongly that their art does NOT represent anything - that it is a reality unto itself - that would be a tough order.

[bentbow]

Have you ever read the article "Why You Pretend to Like Modern Art" by Spengler (you can find it here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IE01Aa01.html ).
I hope that link works!

I enjoy reading your thoughts on art in general and on abstract art. The latter is something I wonder about too and try to understand. (I definitely gravitate toward realism.)

[Tim J.]

Thanks, bentbow, for that recommendation. The link worked fine, and I read both the article you suggested and the one preceding it. Very insightful.

So much of the modernist movement is what I call "anti-art" rather than art. But more later.

[Agellius]

Tim, I found it enlightening that you categorize abstract art under the heading decorative art. I had never thought of it that way and it makes sense to me. However as you also said, I have never been moved by abstract art. I find the decorative art on some mosques far more exquisite and enjoyable than any modern abstract art. But even then, it doesn't really *move* me. It may impress me but that's something different.

[Agellius]

A question: Is the abstract painting shown in the Rockwell piece supposed to represent anything? I mean are any figures or anything meaningful represented there? Or is it purposely totally abstract?