No.
People like CanGam and Dubya think of themselves as belonging to a select group of people who’s brains are unsullied by the intellectual sophistry of an abstract education. It’s kind of an elitism of ignorance; a carefully cultivated tunnel vision.
Wrong, idiot. I said anyone who says there’s nothing there; I have many times saying “I get nothing from it” is perfectly valid.
Sigh. That’s a lie. I thought you understood me a bit better than that - apparently not. I condemn elitism in all its forms.
Please don’t associate me with the President again.
Well, moron, it’s not as if when they say there’s nothing there that they mean it factually. You just can’t help but take it that way.
Oh, I buy that you don’t see it that way. Nonetheless.
Not parsing.
Or maybe I am parsing: you seem to be suggesting that the two phrases–
“There’s nothing in it; you’ve all been fooled”
“I don’t get much out that painting”
–are completely interchangeable. They are not.
To a certain degree, that’s true, but just as certainly it limits boundaries. Say another Monet came along, and for whatever reason decided that his artistic vision meant painting impressionist studies of water and air. Further say that his abilities and execution were just as brilliant and original as the first Monet. I don’t believe the critics would recognize that, for the reason that his work would not fit the current stylistic definition of “good art.” You would hear words bandied about such as “out-moded”, “traditional”, “banal”, and so on. I’m very skeptical of critics; I think they tend to be wrong as often as right.
But you’re correct, this is for a different thread some other time.
That’s pretty evident.
A more concrete example–let’s stay with music. Now, we both have ears. We both can hear. Now if I heard some Azerbaijani or Tajik music, I could tell you whether I like it or not. But am I qualified to have an opinion on it? About what makes good Azerbaijani or Tajik music? Or do I defer to someone who understands it and understands the culture of the music and where it comes from? Indian music sounds foreign to my ears. All the microtones and weird harmonies. It doesn’t conform to my Western expectations. It seems unstructured and cacophonic to me. But is it? Hell no.
And I don’t think I’m allowed to dismiss Indian, Tajik, or Azerbaijani music based on my musical biases. Because people who know what the fuck is going on can distinguish good music from bad music. It’s aesthetics, but there can be a difference between an informed value judgment and an uninformed one.
And the same applies to modern art.
Abstract masterpiece, with colors and structure carefully chosen to represent the rider’s tanned face, his mismatched shoes, and a vampire chasing him on a motorcycle?
Or, something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to make up the BS explanation above?
Only I know for sure. And I’ll tell you if you buy a print for $40,000.
Um, that’s how abstract art “works,” so maybe try again.
I got what you meant. Struck me as an odd combination of words though. 
oops
In Man Riding A Bycycle, the colorful, interactive geometric forms create a pulsating surface that is alternately dynamic and calm, aggressive and quiet. The importance of rectangles in this painting prefigures the dominant role they would play in many subsequent works, culminating in his cosmic and harmonious image Several Rectangles. “The rectangle,” claimed Mr2001, “is the synthesis of the greatest oppositions. It combines the concentric and the eccentric in a single form and in equilibrium. Of the three primary forms, it points most clearly to the fourth dimension.”
Touché.
Abstract masterpiece designed to convey the yearning to ride? A sense of wonder at the speed with which a bike can move someone? Disappointment that Santa Claus brought the man a Huffy instead of a Schwinn?
Or something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to write the first BS explanation, read your reply, and write a second BS explanation?
Or something else entirely? How do you feel when you look at it? If you can get something out of it, doesn’t that mean the piece is great, even though you’re doing all the real work?
Writing about abstract art is a *little *like dancing about architecture. Certainly it can be done–I’ve actually seen some very impressive dancing about architecture–but it’s not a simple or direct way to communicate the meaning of one medium via another medium.
That’s why abstract painters paint instead of write; it’s also why writers write instead of paint.
Why must the argument rest on the effectiveness on YOUR piece? No one is saying that all abstract shapes communicate emotion. They’re saying that it’s possible for a great artist to invest abstract shapes and colors with emotion. How does your example address any aspect of that discussion?
My point is only that it’s foolish to attribute that emotion to the artist when it’s just as likely to be a figment of the viewer’s imagination. The human brain is amazingly good at inventing patterns and meaning where none exist; it’s why clouds, stars, and the surface of the moon look like animals and faces.
It seems likely to me, therefore, that any given painting actually has less inherent meaning than it appears to, and a painting whose meaning only becomes apparent after a lot of thought and examination probably has no inherent meaning at all. Someone who makes such paintings is relying on his audience to make up the meaning themselves; I call that laziness, but I’m sure those who defend such works have a more charitable term for it.
I’m not saying some of them aren’t pleasing to the eye. Someone who can consistently make paintings that are more enjoyable to look at than random crap churned out by someone like me, even if he admits that they’re meaningless arrangements of shapes and lines, has talent. But I’m not convinced the paintings by the girl in the OP are any more enjoyable than the random crap I could churn out. (I don’t own any real paint, so we may never know.)
Personally, to me that doesn’t look particularly interesting. All the lines are of equal weight, the composition doesn’t move me like other Mondrians. It’s not terribly dynamic. The colors are boring and lifeless. I’m not saying it’s not possible to create convincing Mondrians on computer. It is. But this is not one of them.
Mondrian is one of the easier artists to imitate/pastiche/parody. Do a Kandinsky and I’ll be happy.
That said, abstract art does not usually “represent” real things like you mentioned. It’s more the capture of an emotion or a feeling – just like in instrumental music.
As for another Monet coming along today, of course his aren’t wouldn’t be as valued as the original Monet’s. I do believe that art is somewhat tied to time and place. And part of every artist’s greatness is the historical context of his art. “High art” attempts to push the boundaries of art, and tries to show us new and exciting ways of seeing. Another Monet doesn’t teach us anything visually.
Nothing has inherent meaning. Meaning is always attributed.
Turn out some 6’ x 6’ paintings & let’s test that hypothesis.
