No one really stops to think about art except art professors or historians or museum curators. That's the first thing; when someone criticizes abstract art for being lazy and pointless, I sometimes doubt that they've really tried to examine and study it closely. Maybe they have, but they just don't see a connection. That's fine, I get it. I'm not going to shove art down your throat if you don't get it. I don't get medieval art. It's some of the most boring stuff to me. But let me tell you, you have no right to assume that since you think something is stupid, everyone else should think it is too, and that people only just pretend to like it in a sort of attempt to engineer the type of person they are and that others will see.
But let's be honest. If a person doesn't feel abstract expressionism, I am almost inclined to believe that if they tried hard enough to understand, listen to, spend time with and know artists and art fans, they would begin to see just what it means to those people, and form interpretations of their own. But I mean, just because there's a small chance you could understand it if you really really tried, doesn't mean you have an obligation try. I mean you have a life too. And you probably have other things to worry about, other things that you care about and are passionate about. You can't afford to care about everything.
I'm just a high school student. I know very very very very little about anything. I think about art quite a bit though. I don't expect you to agree with me, but this is my take on abstract art.
There are all types of people in the world. Truly there are people who live out most of their lives in their own heads. I guess some people would say they are unrealistic and irresponsible and they should stop imagining things and live in the real world. But to them, their mind is the real world. They spend so much time mulling and examining their thoughts and emotions, it's what they know.
All the abstract expressionist artists I learned about in Humanities class were "tortured" artists. These are the type of people for whom most of their lives is focused on an inner dialogue with themselves. (I am not entirely sure if they were tortured and depressed as a direct result of the things they thought about, or if it's as a result of a consequence of being introspective all the time, for example routinely not sleeping enough because they've stayed up all night thinking about the meaning of the universe, because prolonged sleep deprivation really takes a toll on your sanity. Or being bad at making friends and then being depressed because they have no one to share their inner world with. Or, I think simply because they're part of a misunderstood minority of people, or they feel that they're in a minority of people. Because even if 70% of the population was like this, they would all be so isolated within themselves that they wouldn't realize they weren't alone.)
So we have people like this. Do you think they're going to connect well with a realistic classical depiction of a king? Or a mundane impressionistic landscape? (Okay well I was going to say no, but actually probably yeah now that I think about it. I think maybe they could connect with anything that doesn't talk. So I guess there are some details of the "real world" that they would focus on and the rest kind of is a blur for them. I mean they have to have some inspiration of something for them to think about, right?)
But anyways I digress. My point was supposed to be that these artists have so much in their mind and how they see it, there's not much in the real world that mirrors how they feel. I mean, nature is wonderful, but what about the expansive seemingly endless jumble of swirling emotions that surrounds and colors the artist's every waking second? What does one do about that?!? Painting depictions of the real world simply isn't going to do these emotions justice.
When I look at a work of abstract expressionism, I think that the artists are trying to paint their own world. They're creating their own spaces. They're not copying God's work, they're trying to make their own. We've had centuries of trees and people in our paintings. They want to make their own world. These artists, they're playing god. Drawing on the forces inside their heads.
And every artist's work is very distinct. I think that on their own, the art wouldn't mean that much but the artists charge the canvases with their purpose and their life. They make the art, and the art makes them. It becomes a part of their identity. Truly each artist is unique and feels and interprets their world differently.
You're going to look at their art, and you're not going to see the same thing as what they painted. (Maybe you don't see anything at all.) But I think they know that. Maybe they're okay with that or maybe they don't ever quite get past the rift that traps them in their own minds. But anyways, whatever you see in that art is going to say a good deal about who you are, and you're probably not ever going to entirely understand it! Especially if you aren't accustomed to thinking about things without need of words to describe what you're thinking. But for many people, there is something there when they look at that art.
And you know what, it's not that easy to come up with something that detaches itself from the natural world and becomes a representation of a only feeling! Pollock? Check out the surface of Europa. Rothko? There's an endless color field shimmering and shifting its tone to reflect the state of the world and it's called THE SKY. (IMO compare the artist's work to God's work, the artist's work seems crude in comparison.) But anyways, that art is going to have a character that is unique to itself and its painter.
I think it's just amazing and rich, the art. It sometimes kind of hurts though.
So. That's my take on abstract expressionism.
----------------
A CODA
You know something that isn't reflected in nature though? Music. You could say most music is abstract because it rarely ever resembles birdsong or running water. Music is kind of something mankind can boast as its own creation. It's really distinctly human. Although there are insanely ingenious skilled composers who can illustrate a morning or a storm or moonlight with their music, it's a very human emotionally charged rendition. It's crazy, I can't wrap my head around it. The theory of music is really very simple compared to the emotions it can evoke. And the technical theory part of music is already insanely complex as far as I can tell. Like Mahler, Sibelius?!?! Where the heck did you get those ideas?!?! How did you know how to express it so perfectly?! Aaaaaaaah I just CAN'T EVEN. You guys achieve alicorn princesshood. You too Beethoven and Stravinsky and Mozart and Bach and Tchaikovsky and Dvorak and Barber and Marjan Mozetich (srry had to google ur name) and Delibes and Verdi, Rossini, Strauss, Strauss, Strauss. You get cookies AND RAVEL AND DEBUSSY AND LISZT AND VAUGHAN WILLIAMS AND CHOPIN k I'm not going to liszt everybody it's just too much to handel
No comments:
Post a Comment