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
Abstract art is often an exploration that is about the vagueness that you might dislike, and that’s fine. Not everyone likes the same kinds of art.
For example, we can start from a very physically grounded question: how few lines can I use to still evoke the idea of a person? You could imagine the literal thing with just a photograph of a person. But then I can play with it by removing more features, until it’s just some line strokes that I feel satisfied with.
If you take the abstraction process further, you have art that doesn’t necessarily have a clear, unambiguous intent. Maybe I just want to evoke feelings or concepts, and that inherently also means you may not experience it that way. Or maybe I just feel like exploring different colors and brush strokes.
Now, the way art is *presented* and *consumed* is a whole other matter that isn’t just about the art itself. Why do art installations use such insufferable language? Because that’s what’s fashionable in “the art world,” which starts mixing in issues of social class and expectations about who is viewing the art and who the art is for.
Latest Answers