Abstract Painting or Nonobjective Painting?

In the art world, as happens in many other worlds, there may occasionally be a discussion so esoteric that a meaningful analysis must question everything from semantics to physics to psychology.  That kind of discussion arises from time to time about the nature of contemporary abstract painting. Is it abstract painting or nonobjective painting?

It doesn’t sound like a particularly juicy topic. But, it seems there are critics, painters, and innocent bystanders who have felt the heat from these discussions. No painting can actually fully portray any other object or idea or feeling – so, all art is abstracted to one degree or another.

People who think about art prefer objective definitions in sometimes subjectively decided areas of reference. The easiest approach to this kind of discussion would be to outline a set of characteristic variables for differentiation of abstract painting from nonobjective painting. Then ascribe some markers along each continuum, and finally, do the math.

After all, if science can reclassify Pluto as a non-planet, then art people should also be allowed to digress in areas less defined.

The problem develops on many points: 1) Does the artist portray or suggest any images of real-world objects? 2) Does a painting use any depicted structures that approach a form even roughly geometrical? 3) Does the artist use characters – letters, numbers, symbols – in the painting? 4) Is the character of line such that it qualifies as writing or script or the outline of some thing 5) Can we determine if a form or suggested form was intentionally rendered by the artist, subconsciously rendered by the artist, or mistakenly rendered by the artist? 6) Are patterns or near-patterns a meaningful coding of a language or a pictorial sequence? 7) Is a paintstroke or other application itself a form, an object or a depiction of another form. And so on.

Granted, if you get into a discussion like this it could shake your interest in talking about art. God strengthen any artist who would push through these questions, especially if emanating from a tense mob. Of course, Van Gogh had his soul and Jackson Pollock had his unconscious.

That artists and critics seek, or create, these kinds of reasons and definitions speaks to the wish to understand abstract painting as opposed to nonobjective painting. People willing to offer some simple platitude or rule of thumb in these discussions may suffer burning at the stake or a trip to the gulag.

Many artists just don’t talk about it. They may be shielded from it by dealer or friends. Some artists affect their own
nonverbal language to ignore or escape the heat. Others speak long and loud with the assurance that they are expected to be passionate and not fully rational about their work processes.  Others DO what they DO – they just get IT – they got IT when their favorite rolemodel artists did IT – and they still get IT.   Whatever “IT” is is just either gotten or not gotten.

This is especially tragic for the viewer or critic or collector that can never fully let go of the idea that “art must mean something”. It MUST have some objective message! It MUST be about something! It’s meaning MUST be deep in the colors and rhythms of the work! The artist MUST have depicted his/her feelings. . . yes, even a particular, pure feeling – one that we can locate and define if we will only search endlessly with deep intuition!  Wow, I feel their need!

Many artists do not want to paint meaning. These artists purposefully exclude objective, logical, semantic or philosophical features from their compositions. In the matter of feelings, most artists will say something as to the extent that their feelings were part of the creative process or the final product. Whether their feelings ARE the object of depiction is really almost impossible to discuss.

Discussion is usually a good thing, but most of us want a little closure after a discussion – as to our thoughts or beliefs about a topic. When you ask art people about their resolutions on a topic you will hear a variety of ideas. Some of these ideas come off as tentative and somewhat simplified explanations. Which is what I will give now.

Abstract Painting intentionally contains a representational version, however modified, of an existing form or fragments of forms taken from the real world. Nonobjective Painting is any composition devoid of intentional suggestion of any real world objects or cognitive messages, but possibly containing geometric or patterned displays.

There, I’ve said it! That is the closure on the topic that I prefer and defend.

Tia Marks

Tia Marks was the Executive-Editor of Contemporary Art Gallery – Magazine for Galleries and Art Business. CAG specialized in nonobjective painting, artist interviews and exhibitions.

Nonobjective Painting – Art Without Meaning?

Can art be of importance without meaning? Must “good” art convey the zeitgeist of the times in which it was created?
Does “depth of meaning” correlate directly to “goodness” of art?

A definition of terms here would be of value but the terms in question are so based on individual and subjective opinion that the definitions would also be questioned.

Abstract painting, particularly the nonobjective painting of many artists since the 1940s is arguably devoid of meaning.  In fact many artists want it that way. They prefer to see purely compositional factors, the tenets of design as the measure of their works. Does this relegate them to the level of design, not truly “high art”?

Abstract paintings can do two things. 1) They can ascend to the highest level of design, and 2) they may transcend it to
“high art.” Just as Kurt Schwitters paper snips transcend the craft of hobbyists cutting paper, and Joseph Cornell’s boxes transcend the craft of cabinet makers or box designers – so can an abstract paintings transcend design.

The criteria of the word “meaning” needs some discussion in my opinion.  The “meanings” that some narrow-sighted critics refer to as being the paramount criterion of “high art” usually revolve around historic, philosophic, and religious dimensions. These meanings purportedly reflect the highest ideals and aspirations of man and God.

I appreciate meanings as much as the next person. I like the classical, epic struggles of mythology, the ancient renditions of the history of the world, the religious icons of every century, the struggles of mankind and every individual in mankind. These  all contain wonderful meanings and certainly worthy of artistic depiction.

Now consider the meaning of a man or woman who struggles to create pure beauty, the artist. The artist who wants to create not only “high art” but does so without the tools of religious thought, without the maps of cultural revolutions, without the applause of an informed and socially motivated political movement, without the traditions of a craftsmens guild. Consider this courageous individual who creates original works.

These individuals not only attempt real, although only mortal, creation at its highest level – they do so in a unique and hardwon individual style. In addition, their work is meant to free, and amplify your perception of art and beauty in all of its mysterious manifestations.

That “is” meaning. You can witness this meaning in its record of each abstract painting. No, not every painting is a masterpiece of design – and these works can’t fall back on a cliche’ or a social nomenclature to gain acceptance. This kind of work stands as a testament to a real struggle to push something to the highest level of art with no help from all the other “manifold meaning packages” that were the reason for art in previous centuries.

Tia Marks

Tia Marks was the Executive-Editor of Contemporary Art Gallery – Magazine for Galleries and Art Business. CAG specialized in nonobjective painting, artist interviews and exhibitions.