"Getting" Abstract Art

When I hear people say, "I don't like Abstract Art," what I really hear is, "I don't get Abstract Art." And that's okay. We've all got our interests and we all appreciate creativity on different levels. But there are a large subset of art admirers who express their disdain for Abstract Art. It's one thing to not 'like' a particular school of art, but I believe to be a true admirer, and even to just be a student of the humanities, you 'must' be able to appreciate the various schools on some level. Or at least must be able to work at it. Even Abstract Art.

My biggest annoyance is when someone remarks, "It doesn't look like anything," or, much worse, "I can do that."

Boy, are they missing the point.

I am by no means an authority on art. In fact, I only have a casual knowledge of the field. Art Appreciation 101 type stuff. What I do know, however, is that the masterpieces have stood the test of time because they transcend the medium and portray the human experience. I believe it is this basic principle that allows me to appreciate art on a pleasing plane.

This does sound snotty yet? Don't worry, it gets better.

The simplest way I think I can express what Abstract Art is, is by comparing it to another art form: Jazz. Jazz, in it's instrumental form, is about sound and form. There are no lyrics, no direct conveyance of intent, only interpretation. Vocal music depends on lyrics to incite a feeling, but instrumental Jazz is like a chemical, in that directly causes a reaction. There are no need for words.

I present Allen Toussaint's "Egyptian Fantasy"

You can feel the pride beaming from this song. It's all-together celebratory and haunting. No words needed.

Abstract Art is no different. Where Classical or Modern Art relies on defined images to tell a story, Abstract Art only makes use the basic elements of art. Form, shape, intensity, value, and color, usually used in harmony to create an image, are stripped and displayed in their rawest form.

I present Barnett Newman. Onement, I. 1948

What, at first glance appears as nothing more than a thin, vertical stripe across a deep marroon, only reveals itself after careful study. The line is not solid, and in it's imperfection conveys a sense of speed and movement. Usually, this kind of speed is disconcerting, but it's placement, dead center, brings a sense of order and balance. The dark, rich marroon in the background creates great depth, the line appears much closer to the viewer; providing even more movement. Brush strokes are left deliberately exposed, displaying the raw action intended by the artist. You can almost see his arm moving up and down the canvas, starting and stopping with great purpose.

Is that a correct interpretation? I'm not sure. I don't know the guy and I have no idea what, if anything, he was trying to convey. I could only react to the work, with not only what I know, but also what I feel. Abstract Art is almost social art, in that it depends equally on the observer as it does on the artist. We are all free to make our own interpretations. There are no wrong answers.

As for the, "I can do that," argument: No, you can't. Half of what it takes to be an Abstract Artist is having the tenacity to expose yourself, inner demons and possible dementia for all to see. You don't have the guts. (Don't worry, I don't either)

Abstract Art gives us a direct window into the way our brain works. It's a visual representation of how synapses fire. Nothing is by accident. Nothing is done haphazardly. When Pollock sprinkled and dripped paint from a can, you can bet every movement was done with intent.  There are no mistakes, only thoughts and feelings.