| archives connections journal |
 recently
|
please leave a message, after the post. |
archives
|
the continuous chain
danne |
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Impassioned ! •
"A poem should not mean, but be." Comparing Mondrian's reduction of the art of painting to Plato's idyllic abstraction of every concept that exists in this universe to his Forms is like comparing a genetically-modified Hercules to the gods - it isn't even original, and despite trying to imitate something imperfect in itself, the end result turns out conceptually worse off, and the whole experiment is not much more than a mockery of the good idea that gave birth to it, as well as itself. Plato's abstraction of all concepts to the form of "Good" is subject to considerable criticism as it is, philosophically speaking. This we know, but what is truly important in the context of this discussion is the purpose of the abstraction, both of art and of thought, and it's end result. Plato's conception of the forms was in an attempt to form a formal system, somewhat, of knowledge, upon which we can build all the knowledge we have; a rational, objective one, not subject to human imperfections. Here lies the similarity of Mondrian's abstraction to Plato's philosophy: it seeks to find a way to help us understand the nature of all art, all representation, by abstracting forms and space to the most elemental colors and shapes(supposedly, anyway). However, the follow-ups to the understanding gained were vastly different. For Plato, they were obviously a means to an end: to the end of gaining more knowledge, by using this knowledge as a structure by which to understand and learn more about the world. Mondrian, on the other hand, treated the "forms" as an end in themselves. Here comes the normative bit of my essay: understanding of the forms should NOT be the end of our efforts in themselves. The forms in themselves, being completely neutral, hold no value to us, cannot expound anything to us nor give us any experiences. Thus, say what you like, Mondrian. You may claim that your abstract paintings are "not meaningless but neutral", but this much is evident: they are useless. Sure, they show us the pure forms in themselves: the primary colors and black and white and lines and squares and rectangles. But I already know that these are the pure elements! It is the basic lesson in art that any art student learns before even formally acquainting himself or herself with any artist's work. Even if you mean to remind us of this, with such abstract work, how would you gain the attention of the laymen or tired students who are the ones who would not probe your motivation and thus miss out on the knowledge of your intentions? Furthermore, for all your claims of objectivity, what justification is there for the use of such a blue-colored patch here, and such a black line there? Sure it looks "right", because of balance in the forms, but there is a multitude of permutations and combinations of such arrangements that could be formed to give such aesthetic balance. perhaps this number is finite, but there remains no justification for your selection of representing these particular examples in which the pure elements of art are balanced in their pure states. Your choice of representing just these, removes your precious objectivity right out of your art, Mondrian my man. and besides all these, isn't art not supposed to be about aesthetics? Note, though, that I am far from slamming abstraction: rather, I find it a field that has not been represented well by the artists through time, generally. I'd desire to rescue it to society. There is so much good done already: Jackson Pollock's representation of his "inner psyche" through his particular methods carries certain meaning, or tries to, at least, compared to Mondrian's retarded "art in itself". I hold expressionism in high regard, personally, for the focus on emotion, something intelligent people in contemporary society would fear to delve into due to its convoluted nature. The logical extension of Mondrian's interpretation and philosophy of art, I personally feel, is the work of the late Chuck Close - demonstrating and informing his philosophy of the structure of art to his audience through explanation, or in the art itself, in his pixelization(representation of the colors in the most elemental forms) to serve a greater purpose; be it realistic representation or any other(though the necessity of representing your philosophy of the structure of art in the artwork itself so blatently may be a course of action whose justification is debatable. this as opposed to representing your philosophy of art, such as i will elaborate of mine later, in your artwork: which is of course, absolutely crucial, duh.) 10:21 pm |