One thing I am usually telling to my friends is that “Art is Abstract”. Someone can see this as an easy way to escape from explaining an art, or perhaps as a view influenced by post-modernism. But, the act of explaining an art is useless. One could remember the words by the artist in Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, “Art is useless”. It’s quite annoying for anyone who loves any kind of art to read this. At the same time, one could also argue that art has a strong influence on people, it could be both water and fire. But, what we are missing here is the perspective of the artist. For that, we need to talk a little more.
What we mean by telling that something is abstract? We could say that it is something existing as a thought or idea and having no physical existence. This is a rather rough explanation for our discussion. What I would suggest is that it is anything that cannot be explained with its mere physical existence. It need not be an idea or a thought or a result of a conscious process. Let me explain this with an example. Suppose you are watching a dance performance, what you can see with your eyes are just the movements made by the dancer and there would be music associated with that. But that is not actually what the viewer is getting. Interaction of the physical reality with each mind is different, whenever this happens the beauty of performance is unfolded. And for the artist beauty of the performance may feel different.
The capacity of humans to think about abstract things is a major question towards this. Not only in the case of art, but for anything abstract. When we are thinking about any concrete thing, we could say that some brain regions are becoming more active. And our brain even can simulate a thing. But, what about abstract things? Well, the puzzle is rather simple at this point. Abstract thoughts are interpreted by linking to concrete examples. Suppose you are telling that someone was rough, then actually inside our head, you are rubbing against something rough. It’s much like a pseudo-random number generator.
Where the abstraction comes in the picture then? Is it associated with the performer or the viewer or is it independent of both? One would probably argue that the beauty of art is in the eyes of those who are watching it. But I would say that it is independent of both the performer and the viewer. The performer or the viewer is not intentionally making any abstract level for the art, but art itself is abstract and so it’s existence also is. Its space is between the artist and the viewer, the moment it’s interpreted by anyone, the art is no more there. An interpretation would result in extracting one of the possible thoughts out of it.
But, why it is like that? Why there could be so many possible interpretations for the same thing? Is it something intentionally done by the artist? I would say no. The artist need not be conscious of all the possible explanations for his art. He is simply making something he wanted to make. The abstract nature is there because of the diversity of thoughts among individuals. No two people can think exactly in a similar way. Like that no two people can similarly enjoy an art. That is why I would suggest that the abstract nature of art unfolds in the space between artist and viewer. So it is independent of both the components. So art is what the artist intended to make, neither it is what the viewer wanted to see. It is this fact that makes it beautiful.
Art is like something existing for its self. It need not be the result of an intention. Artist, in this case, looks like a body for delivering that, and once it’s out in the space it’s free and independent from anything. So, it’s better not to say it is useful or useless and better not to assign any role for that. And that is exactly why it is another form of freedom.
Art is abstract.
Art is freedom.
abstract thoughts 