Abstraction in the absence of representation

"There is no abstract art. You must always start with something." ― Pablo Picasso

There can be no representation without a subject and there can be no abstraction without representation. All semantics aside, you cannot abstract nothing because the word nothing is just an illogicality created to explain the absence of everything. Contrary to popular belief you cannot find nothing. Nothing is, quite literally the absence of existence. Nothing is hell. As Picasso said "There is no abstract art. You must always start with something."

Art is the creation of something and by birth is invested with representation–it exists. That existence may be entirely representational in that a cup not only represents a cup but is also a cup. Alternatively, representation might be abstracted to varying degrees even to the extent where it may require expert decoding in order to establish a connection with it.

The catch-22 of abstract expressionism is that aesthetically it can border on the banal and can disconnect viewers rather than engage them. This fine line between aestheticism and visual banality is for good reason so that people are not distracted by the aesthetics of the piece but instead engage with its deeper premise.

So, in that respect, abstraction still needs to ensure that the subject of original representation is capable of being accessed. That doesn’t mean that this needs to be represented in the art itself. With the use of metonymy this might be alluded to in the picture’s title or may even require decoding by an expert. Even Mark Rothko insisted that art cannot exist without subject matter and that "[t]here is no such thing as a good painting about nothing."

In other words people cannot be expected to ponder the invisible question! The question even if abstracted must still be capable of grasping. In limited circumstances some artists deny access to any semblance of original representation and in the process the art’s abstraction is completely extinguished. When artist’s deny people the opportunity to even connect with the subject of their art it is literally rendered anti-expressionist. Even worse is the tendency to feel that we are somehow inferior due to our failure to grasp the art’s meaning–it becomes our fault.

The problem then becomes how do we know if the subject matter of the art is actually out of reach of ourselves or if the artist is just supplanting complexity with obscurity. This is an important issue. If we are to look at art as communication the fact is that even when having a difficult subject explained to us–even if we cannot grasp the complexity of the subject or even fully understand it–we still know what the subject is. I may not understand one iota about quantum physics but I know that it is a sub-branch of the science of physics and generally deals with stuff that’s very very small. Even if comprehension of the subject is out of my reach, I still know what the subject is. In other words, it is only by knowing what the subject is that I am capable of determining whether the subject is actually within my comprehension or not.

So, as a form of communication art has to, in some way connect people with the original subject of the abstraction.

This is not to imply that art for an artist doesn’t sometimes commence without a clear intent but as the artist gives effect to their own subconscious they do so in the hope that their subconscious speaks to them and that the subject reveals itself to them as their art piece develops. The trick then is ensuring that the subject’s abstraction is capable of being decoded by people other than just the artist.

Also, I’m not saying that people cannot find something in a random detritus of paint on canvas but that it then becomes no different than meditating on the ripples in water or pondering the lines in your own hand or examining Rorschach images for that matter. Anything that you conjure up at that point is entirely the product of your own imagination and in a strange act of transference you have become the creator where both the subject and its meaning is reflected entirely by your own psychology as opposed to art.

The truth is that in the search for subject matter in art we have no interest in finding our own strange accidents; rather we expect a sense of cognisance in our art and our artists. We expect intelligent creation that gives effect to the cognitive and emotional intelligence of the artist.

Art as a sign of cognisant intent is an extension of why we as human beings communicate with other people. It’s not that we expect art or artists to tell us what to think but that we expect their art to engage us–to make an effort.

To quote Curtis Verdun "Abstract art isn’t simply a lack of realism. It’s rather a heightened depiction of what the subject really is."

Banner image courtesy of Steve Johnson on Unsplash