How to understand abstraction?
We all know
what art is - music, paintings, performance etc. but can we understand it? Especially
modern, abstract one? Recently I stumbled upon a lecture by Masza Potocka – an art
critic and director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Krakow (MOCAK).
The title
of this lecture was “How to understand abstraction?” – You can find it on
YouTube (I can’t post link because it is in polsh). This lecture made me think
again about the meaning of art itself and when art is really art and when it
isn’t. I am sure many of you heard plenty of times about some new shocking
performance or painting. You have definitely seen paintings that looked like scribbles
of a 2-year-old kid or it just seemed like anybody could paint it. An example
of the painting that can cause such thoughts can be “Painterly Realism of a
Peasant Woman in Two Dimensions” known as “Red Square” by Kazimir Malevich.
In her
lecture Potocka demonstrates varied examples of abstract paintings e. g.
2 Cy Twombly. Leda and the Swan
3 Otto Zitko (unfortunately I didn’t found
painting from lecture)
I’m
wondering - should we be delighted by these paintings?
Here I can
ask again – what is art? What, or maybe who, decides whether something can be
defined as art?
When I saw
the connoisseur, Masza Potocka, delighted by such work of art showing how deep
and meaningful it is, I remembered a scene from a movie The Great Beauty (La
grande belleza) by Paolo Sorrentino (worth watching, by the way) which I think
can be a great polemic of it.
Please find
and watch on Youtube video called “Marina Abramovic scene (The Great Beauty/La
Grande Bellezza)” published by user Debad. It’s in Italian with English
subtitles and it’s only 4:20 min long.
Going back
to the lecture – the first lecturer’s thesis is to refute the word “understand”
when it comes to the art. She argues that the art does not suit rational
thinking and that in relation to the art you can only talk about some kind of
connection with message that the work of art is. That the connection does not
consist of understanding but of some kind of thought and emotional provoking
identification in some kind of structure, meaning or message. Furthermore, she
argues that the highest achievement in reception of art is sense that you DO
NOT understand it. Instead, the message of that piece of art is what YOU, in
some way, would like to express not exactly knowing what this expression is.
I would
like to comment on this by citing a story called Sokal Affair.
In 1966,
the article by the
physics professor Sokal entitled
"Transgressing the
Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity” was
approved and published in the Academic Journal “Social text” and soon caused a heated discussion. Later
Sokal revealed that the article was an experiment. It examined the scientific
rigor of the journal and exposed the intellectual laziness of the academic left
who would publish anything that sticks to their ideas and beliefs – such as not
scientifically proven, meaningless patchwork of random words which the Sokal’s
article in fact was.
In my opinion what Potocka says in her lecture is equivalent to Sokal’s fake article – for me it is a mixture of random words with no meaning behind it.
In my opinion what Potocka says in her lecture is equivalent to Sokal’s fake article – for me it is a mixture of random words with no meaning behind it.
What do you think about Potocka’s way of perceiving art?
Would you also reject the term “understand” in
the art-terms dictionary?
And what do you
think about the abstract art and its creators – are they artists for you?
What decides whether something is a piece of art?
What decides whether something is a piece of art?
Can it be objectively
determined?
And how can we identify intellectual imposture?
And how can we identify intellectual imposture?
Sources:
Art speaks to my emotional part rather than intellectual, but I will never reject the term “understand”. Cognitive aspect is very important in moving in the world and never can be substitute with emotions or perceiving. Those are different puzzles and without them picture wouldn’t be complete. From my childhood I have been a visitor of many museums and never been bored with permanent exhibition which is in museum near my parents’ house. I like paintings that presents “something” and although sometimes abstraction moves me I perceive Potocka’s point of view out of humans’ experience and adding great value to something which looks like chimpanzee play is as you wrote “random words with no meaning behind. In history there were many new ways of painting, new techniques or ways of reflecting (and in some way understanding) reality, but decision what is better art and what to support were also a political issue and some artists had close relation with authorities – it’s why their art was art and others not. Even today some artists get money from state and some not and I don’t see the difference between them. However we have to remember that many of abstractionists could paint not only abstraction, but also had really excellent workshop and painted wonderful realistic paintings before they started to create their own way. Following their development we can see that splotches have their own history and are consequence of long studies and trails. Knowing the history I can “understand” the picture and why it is valuable in some way. But still I think red square is just red square. Value is in development of artist not in this picture.
ReplyDeleteI have my own intellectual imposture detector: wise people with great minds explain world in simply words, so if I don’t understand the text, it’s probably senseless ad not worth reading.
What do you think about Potocka’s way of perceiving art?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand art the same way as her. However I can understand her way of perceiving it.
Would you also reject the term “understand” in the art-terms dictionary?
yes definitely, art is something different for anyone and it should not be subjective.
And what do you think about the abstract art and its creators – are they artists for you?
I prefer more "normal" paintings that portray something I know or could imagine without some deeper meaning underneath it.
What decides whether something is a piece of art?
People who are working with art everyday and know the difference.
Can it be objectively determined?
I think yes, I don't have that knowledge to say yes or or no.
And how can we identify intellectual imposture?
By our own experience and feelings.
What about historical paintings? In many cases historical painitngs were sending some message on an intellectual level not emotional one. Would you reject understanding of that kinds of paintings too
Deleteand see them only on emotional level?
I think art is about how it interacts with you. If it evokes any emotions it is the artist's success, and if you pass indifferently past the work, it is a failure. I only knew Kazimir Malevich's painting "Black Square", which is worth several million dollars. At the beginning I thought that everyone could paint it, like many of my friends. Later on, I understood that the artist wanted to trigger such response from the recipients. I think it is similar in the case of "Red Square". I think it's funny that people react exactly as predicted by an artist (include me) :)
ReplyDeleteI think that the art is not only to evoke emotions. In many cases it tries to speak to us on intellectual level as well.
DeleteHistorical paintings often contains many historical facts and informations. In my opion art should not only cause in us emotions but create some new thought in our mind -
change something in our perciving of reality.
I think that Potocka's way of perceiving art is silly and in fact pathetic. There will always be someone who would admire given thing but this does not mean it is something worth admiring.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't reject the term "understand" in the art-terms dictionary, although art should base mainly on beyond-understanding features, but understanding is still important in some part. But even if I would reject understanding and trust only my feelings I still wouldn't admire any of given above "art" examples. Though I can admire a simple square as an art of just square as it is, not lying that there is more than that.
Sometimes abstract art is really glamorous and such artist deserve respect and admiration. Abstraction is very important aspect of human being and intelligence and I do not see any reason why it shouldn't be presented in form of art or design.
But sometimes there are some creators who are really lousy and try to find some false deeper meaning to convince other about their alleged genius.
What decides whether something is a piece of art? I think there are a few factors. One is when the art is really complex and not much people could do this in similar way. Second one is when it strongly touches our inner abstract feelings, but not only subjective ones, but also objective, so deeply rooted in our human existence and antropological archetypes.
Can some creation be objectively determined as art? It depends on what definition of art we accepted. If we treat art as I described above, I think it is possible, though hard to do.
How can we identify intellectual imposture? I don't quite understand the question, if it is about copyrights or just pretending to be a good artist.
But it is very interesting what you wrote about Sokal's trick. Maybe such "artist" you wrote about also want to provocate other people or just want to earn money with easy effort - hard to say.
I understand intellectual inpostures as way of tricking people deliberately that what you say is true or that you are an expert in some field.
DeleteEg. People that claim that earth is flat or that vaccines doesn't work commit intellectual impostrues - and sadly many other people beleive them.
Of course this is radical example and it is easy to identify that what they are saying is wrong but it is not that easy most of the time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I agree with the fact that not every art must be understood, not everything has to be presented literally. In my opinion, art is supposed to give emotions. This emotions can be as incomprehensible as the picture, and this is the best part. It is probably the most beautiful in abstract art that forms, shapes and colors affect our emotions.
ReplyDeletePerception at the moment is more important than understanding painting. Of course there are abstract paintings so "primitive" (and I don't mean Malevich here) that their understanding would be impossible. It seems to me that abstract art is it to stimulate the imagination of the recipient. It is not literal, unreal and therefore unique.
I agree with what you say but is there a way to distinguish real art from "garbage"? With your definiotion it seems impossible because art to become an art needs just one person (eg. art critic) who would say that this painting gives him emotions.
DeleteMy girlfriend is a graphic designer and she's obsessed with all these various abstractions. I've tried to admire such art just like she does, but trust me, it's a pretty hard thing to follow. Nevertheless, I found myself looking at the art from a wider perspective and it helps a lot in order to understand it better. Everyone perceives the art on his own conditions and it's a good thing we may share our different thoughts with each other. I think that the term 'understand' in art is unnecessary, rejecting it might be a good idea. Is there a person in the world that really 'understands' the art? Guess no. Abstract creators are artists, no doubt (imagine my gf reaction if I wouldn't agree). They're doing a great piece work which in my opinion it's much harder than painting dead nature or human bodies for example. I believe that there are no such indicators to mark something as an art. We may see art in things other people do not. For me, it's not possible to determine.
ReplyDeleteFor me it's rather simple to say if something is a nice piece of art, if I feel like it's nice when looking at it, then it is. I don't want to get into artist's mind to understand what's going on his painting. Those paintings that you mentioned doesn't look nice so it is not an art for me.
ReplyDeleteI do not like so called modern art either - the paintings presented by you above do not appeal to me and where their beauty and deeper sense are. On the hand, maybe I am simply not able to understand it :)
ReplyDeleteI don’t feel like I perceive art in Potocka’s way. I think it’s a way of overemotionals. For me abstract artists are overly dramatic in terms of perceiving reality or products of their creativity either they are just good salesmans. Everything can be an art, after you name it. Just check out 1961 artwork of the Italian artist Piero Manzoni, if you don’t know it yet… I can buy a box of matches, light one with a strip and tell everyone that it’s an art – and it may truly be, there is some story put into it, but would you guess it? In matchbox example you have context - you know it, because you know purpose of a match, but what about orange square? It really pisses me of when someone tries to force me into or even suggest deep thoughts about it. It’s just a coloured shape, c’mon… but wait. Maybe that’s an art – this whole theatre and this moment, when you realize, that author really meant nothing, like meaningless patchwork of random words which Sokal’s article in fact was. In these terms I really appreciate abstract art, yeah, intellectual imposture.
ReplyDelete1. I think that art should be perceived by every person, according to his opinion. Therefore, I would not like to evaluate her method.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think I would reject it. Art is a versatile field that influences every possible part of the world, the environment, behavior, perception and thinking. 'Understand' is needed.
3. Art is the expression of yourself. Any approach to this can be called art. Is any and very extensive technique
4. It's heavy, it can be well camouflaged.
Modern art doesn't evoke any emotions in me. I don't understand it and I wouldn't like to have any of those paintings from the article. Potocka's way of perceiving art is interesting but I can't really relate with it. And honestly I don't even care about it.
ReplyDeleteStarting with your question about definition of art as someone wrote before it's mostly about the feelings. It's just our state of mind where we look at some sort of things in different way. It's steered by our mood and environment. It's all about interpretation and I'll bravely assume that sometimes people pay too much attention for some stuff. A teacher of mine told me an anecdote about the Shakespeare that at his time he was one of the first cockey-joker and that's why he bring so much attention back in the days and for now on after so many changes in language over the years we're looking for some highly intellectual underbelly but what's if there's non?
ReplyDeleteI'm not skeptic of art or artists but I think that as in life we should know where the balance is.
I fully agree with the part which states that "you do not have to understand it". When it comes to abstract art it is supposed to make me feel something. Whether it could be sudden thought, warmth, nostalgy or anything else.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said we come across a popular problems with abstract art - how can we rate it and how to differentiate a good artist from a charlatan? As for know there is no particular answer to those questions and frankly we don't know if there should be one. My only worry is that we can miss something great in the flood of mediocrity that modern abstract art market can be.