Since the middle of the 20th century, the art world has seen a surge in abstract art. While some may argue that this type of art has value and should be considered “real art,” I believe that abstract art should not be considered real art, and instead should be called “anti-art.”
One of the main arguments in favor of abstract art is that it allows the artist to express their emotions and thoughts in a more free-form way. However, this freedom of expression does not necessarily make it art. Instead, it could be seen as a way for the artist to avoid the constraints of traditional art, such as the use of recognizable subjects and the need for technical skill.
Furthermore, abstract art often lacks the aesthetic appeal and beauty that are typically associated with art. While some may argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, most people can agree that there is a certain level of skill and craftsmanship that goes into creating truly beautiful art. Abstract art, on the other hand, often lacks this level of skill and can come across as unfinished or incomplete.
Additionally, abstract art can be seen as a form of rebellion against the traditional norms of the art world. Instead of adhering to the rules and standards that have been established over the centuries, abstract artists often reject these norms and create works that are deliberately difficult to understand and interpret. While this rebellious spirit may be admirable in some ways, it does not necessarily make their work “art” in the traditional sense of the word.
In conclusion, while some may argue that abstract art has value and should be considered “real art,” I believe that it fails to meet the criteria of what art should be. Instead of being called “art,” abstract art should be called “anti-art” to reflect its rejection of traditional art norms and lack of aesthetic appeal.
To learn the criteria necessary for something to be considered Fine-Art, please read my other article titled “What is Art?“
Please read the second part of this topic.