Mar 29, 2010 in Uncategorized
A new painting was added to this site today. As you can see it’s pure abstract art, pure meaning that there’s nothing from the real world in this painting, just the collection of blobs of paint which we call abstract art. Most of the paintings I’m doing now are purely abstract. This happens when I feel I need to renew my style, which is easier without figurative constraints, like in portraits. Then, if feel I have completed that process, I apply the new style to paintings with figurative elements. So, the abstract does preceed the figurative, which is why I feel justified calling my style abstract art, whether or not it contains figurative elements.
In society the shifting perception of What Is Art? rages on. The art world (museums, galleries, recognized artists) are adamant that in art politics should preceed artistic motives, while the public seems to long for a return to intrinsic artistic merits. Correct me if I’m misjudging public opinion, here, because obviously I might be doing some wishful thinking. Nowadays the art world feels that art should shock. Can anyone explain to me why art has to shock?
Rubens would make art that was intended to shock, to a degree, particularly when he made use of Christian iconography: the crucifiction. Jesus (Him again) was hung on a cross, in the nude and irrevelantly upside down, with a bunch of heavies fanatically busy preparing the crucifiction and a dog barking at Jesus. Not very nice, but the divine sacrifice is central to Catholicism. Through empathy with Jesus, believers are supposed to be able to enter a higher spiritual state. I don’t wish to discuss religion here, the point is that the shock element was part of an established religious tradition, not an expression of “art against society”.
So why does the established art world wants to shock people? I don’t always like the world either, but to wage a bitter guerrilla against John Doe, I don’t get it.
Enlighten me! I’m politically incorrect..