Understanding abstract art – Part 23

As an abstract artist, when asked for the definition of my work, I tell people that I manipulate colors and shapes. A “representational” artist paints something to show that something – a landscape, a still life, a portrait, or a historical scene as examples. Abstractions are manipulations of something, juxtapositions of something…explorations of something other than the representation of the subject.

It can be argued that Picasso’s cubist woman is a “portrait,” but it in no definition is “representational,” because I know of no human who is made of cubes of color. Picasso’s cubist woman is an abstraction of a woman, done through the manipulation of color, shape and juxtaposition of planes.

Another way to describe abstract is to explain it as an experiment in materials. Many mixed media works are experiments in putting together various elements to create a sense of wholeness…the various disparate parts combining to create a new whole.

Sometimes the subject matter of an abstract work is not its point at all. I love the floral paintings of Georgia O’Keefe, not because they are recognizable flowers, but because of her manipulation of form and color. The flowers just happened to be the shapes that best allowed that manipulation.

All “art” is defined, ultimately, by the viewer. One person might indeed look at a Georgia O’Keefe and exclaim ‘what a well rendered rose,’ while the next might say, ‘the richness of the color and the curve of the lines evokes such a sense of wonder.’ Art is truly subjective.