Franz Kline, Mahoning, 1956
What triggered the invention of "Abstract Art"?
In view of a long history of visual representation - what caused some artists in the early 20th century to abandon it entirely?THREE INFLUENTIAL EARLY MODERNISTS
These three left extensive treatises to rationalize their views:
- The abstract pioneers were motivated by extreme , if arguably mistaken, assumptions - not only about the nature of art but also about human nature -- They believed art belonged to a higher spirituality - one that is completely detached from life -- This could only be represented by work in which no objects were depicted or recognizable -- These inventors of "nonobjective art" expected that their work would help humanity attain the higher plane of reality they imagined.
What do ordinary people think of such work?
Despite the abstractionists' inventions, their work is incomprehensible to the viewer who has not yet evolved "beyond reason". We cannot begin to guess their intended meaning just from looking at their work - only through their artist statements can we comprehend lines, shape, and their "highly-evolved" way of thinking.
To the ordinary viewer, a typical Mondrian "composition" conveys no meaning.
Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow
Some abstractionists who represented patterned shapes and colors, like Mondrian, ended up having their nonobjective art work mass produced - hand towels, wallpaper, and high fashion. If they were alive to see the direction their art went they would be pissed.
The risk all abstract artists take is having their work turn into something merely decorative.
I like abstract art on some levels, but I can't help getting flashes of Architecture Digest magazine covers.
How did these Modernists misread the human mind?
Using what we know about the mind through science exploration, it isn't hard to believe that such paintings failed to communicated their maker's intentions. What we understand of our world and our emotions greatly depend on our direct, sensory contact with our physical reality. Sight is our most important sense - so this sensory contact is geared toward recognizing people, places, and things that impact our survival and well-being.
Modernists didn't keep this important facility in mind. Although they preached the rejection of material objects, they nevertheless attempted to represent spirit in material form. They sought to make their images intelligible by trying to break the connection between visual art and the everyday life experience.
The art critic, Clive Bell, once said,
"To appreciate a work of art, we need to bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions."Cognitive science proves Bell's reasoning to be faulty. Studies have demonstrated that images activate the same areas of the brain that relate to real-life experiences. Our understanding and appreciation of art is directly connected to our life experiences. Furthermore, studies show that our higher cognition functions are not activated by abstract patterns like Mondrian's. Clement Greenberg, another art critic, said that "advanced art" - referring to abstract art - was "something to be avoided like the plague." His mistake was ignoring the spiritual aims of the artists who invented abstraction in the first place. Regardless, he did a lot more to persuade the cultural community that the work of abstract expressionists, like Pollock, were major artistic achievements.
Michelle Marder
