133. Not All Abstract Art is Bullshit, But How Can You Tell the Difference?

To portray life has been the role of the artist from the early etchings left on cave walls – but not to the present;  because this function of recording life through images no longer falls into the role of the artist, the camera has taken over that function.   Now, the role of the artist, if it may still be called a role rather than a mission, is to interpret life through his own personal expression.  For centuries recording life and interpreting it through a personal expression was intertwined.  This is still the case today for those who have the skill of realistic drawing, or rather the gift, since it cannot be acquired.   The personal expression set the technical drawing apart from the work of art.  Hence we have the humanity on the faces of Giotto’s characters, the heavenly glances on Fra Angelico’s seraphs, the intensity of Michelangelo’s figures or the incredible scrutiny of Rembrandt’s portraits.

However during the 19^th Century we see the advent of the camera and the “miraculous” event that an image could be recorded in an instant with greater accuracy than that of any artist.  Even though the camera did not add personal interpretation or expression, it was nevertheless a perfect reflection of reality.   So what need was there for an artist to portray life?  The Impressionists asked themselves.  It was from this movement where capturing life in a realistic manner was no longer considered necessary that art has drawn increasingly further away from depicting that which the camera could do in seconds. 

Since then personal expression in the interpretation of life came increasingly to the forefront up to the point that it has enabled to become the ultimate means of absolute freedom any individual can achieve in expression.  Unfortunately, this is where the con men suddenly jumped on the cart for a ride.  Seemingly having no rules, or criteria,  as to whether a piece of work was authentic art or not who could say any different and therefore polluted the artistic world throwing the normal spectator in a world of uncertainty and confusion. 

To redress the balance here are three simple signposts to recognize authentic abstract art from images made by the stampede of elephant stumps.

             1.  Can you see a pattern, of colour, of shape, of signs?

             2.  Can you see a technique?  Even though techniques are not supposed to be seen.  In other words can you see that it is not just a mess?

             3.  Do you like it?  Which doesn’t mean it has to be “pretty”. Van Gogh’s “Sunflowers” are anything but pretty, in fact, as most of his paintings, they are downright ugly, but who can deny they are not “wondrous?”

If either number one or two is positive, it means the paint or whatever has not just been chucked there.  Pattern, rhythm of any kind shows some thought has been paid to the composition, therefore it has been worked upon since talent in this case is otherwise indistinguishable.

If the answer to number three is positive, then no matter who or how that work was accomplished it affects your aesthetic sense and consequently is a work of art. 

A work of genuine art can be identified by one, two or all three of the above elements, however, for a work of art to be meaningful it must always contain the characteristic which affects the aesthetic sense, namely element number 3.   

This type of work in the leaf picture above can be done with all children of any school age. 

1. collect sturdy leaves

2. paint the back with thick poster paints or acrylic

3. place the painted part unto thick paper and press the leaf gently

4. remove leaf carefully and admire effect

5. spray water if you want to blurr the rigidity of the forms and dab with tissue to remove water where in abundance.