I was browsing an online art gallery last night and scrolled past a few abstract art pieces. One was just a bunch of rectangles in slightly different colours and dimensions. Another one was pretty similar but the shapes were more strange. I’ve always thought that either I needed the proper context to appreciate abstract art or the entire thing is just deceptive hackey bullshit. But if the context is required to appreciate it, then why isn’t that very context the first thing mentioned whenever abstract art is brought up? Anyway hoping someone can shed some light and convert a skeptic
In: 0
Context can help in the appreciation of art. The first example you described sounds like it could.be from Mondrian, who has those famous paintings of rectangles in solid colour. At first view sure, it can be confusing and even frustrating why this is considered art. “My kid could do that!” Some would say.
But these works are actually a culmination of his journey in distilling his observations of the surrounding world into increasingly granular and simplified composite parts. Like deconstructing a flower into blocks and shapes that represent the petals, etc.
And these also tie into overall movements in art, surrealism, modernism, postmodernism, where artists move towards certain styles in response to real world developments in culture, politics, war, etc. For instance Mondrian’s work was apparently inspired by Einstein’s atomic theory, which detailed the building blocks of our world at the atomic level.
All that said, I’m not saying you *have* to like an artpiece even if it’s backed by a decades long journey of discovery. Art is subjective and you can like what you like. But often I find it an interesting exercise to internally find out how I feel about a piece of art, then read about what the artist was trying to convey, and then re-evaluate if the piece did or didnt achieve this.
Latest Answers