Abstract art is not supposed to be understood. Starting in the 1940s, abstract artists intentionally made their art difficult to understand and even said that disclosing a meaning would ruin the work.
I still think the whole thing is absurd, but this does bring some more light into abstract art.
I think they were really stoned and said *hits blunt* Picasso: bruh, what if we draw senseless lines and figures and we call it cubism *hits blunt* Pollock: BRUUUUH, what if we only throw paint all over and call it abstract art Both: Bruuuuuuuuuh yeah.
I don't think abstract art is supposed to lack meaning but rather leave room for multiple. The idea of abstract art became popular because it focused on the artists individual ideas and feelings instead on what directly in front of them like how it is with realistic art. It was the idea that turned artists into entertainers rather than workers.
If an artist have not filled their abstract piece with any thoughts or any feelings, the have failed.
I completely agree. This is a discussion I have on the reg with my wife. If go to an artist exhibit, and every work needs an explanation of "what the artist is trying to say", it makes me want to pull my pubes out and shove them into my ears. I just think art should consist of a layer of realism that attracts your attention and asks you to explore a deeper meaning that is within the painting. A deeper meaning that is captured within symbolism, detailed expression, and small gestures.
You shouldn't have to look deeper into all art, but "good" art should be defined by whether or not you are captured enough by the visual attraction of a work to look for a deeper meaning.
It obviously is an existentialist commentary about how life is a battle between two sides, similar yet opposed, which continues back and forth eternally, without meaning.
this is stupid, it's like saying country music is shit because you listen to metal. If you don't like it great shut the fuck up and go listen to metal.
Just because you dont get it, doesnt mean its less valuable... The thing about conceptual art is that it proves how all the deep conceptualization and the process to conceive the idea of the final piece is as rich as the technique... But I will tell you this:
Anyone can learn how to paint academically, but not everyone can produce conceptual art.
Its something that may not be shared, or liked or whatever, but, in the end, deserves to be respected anyways.
I still think the whole thing is absurd, but this does bring some more light into abstract art.
If an artist have not filled their abstract piece with any thoughts or any feelings, the have failed.
You shouldn't have to look deeper into all art, but "good" art should be defined by whether or not you are captured enough by the visual attraction of a work to look for a deeper meaning.
Anyone can learn how to paint academically, but not everyone can produce conceptual art.
Its something that may not be shared, or liked or whatever, but, in the end, deserves to be respected anyways.