Abstract art, often considered a form of Fine-Art, has been a topic of debate for many years. While some argue that it is a legitimate form of artistic expression, others believe that it should not be considered art at all, and should rather be called pseudo-art.
One of the main arguments against abstract art is that it does not meet the basic assumptions about the nature of art held by many people, including those in non-Western cultures. These assumptions include the idea that art should be made with special skill and care, and not simply by chance or accident. Abstract art, however, often relies on randomness or chance in its creation, making it difficult to see it as a true form of art.
Another assumption about the nature of art is that emotionally meaningful forms of visual art consist of representational imagery, rather than abstract forms. Abstract art, by definition, is meaningless because it does not represent anything in the real world, making it difficult for many to connect with it emotionally and see it as a legitimate form of art.
Furthermore, a true work of art is thought to involve more than just technical skill or craft. Making for example photorealism and hyperrealism questionable art forms. True Art should have a personal sensitivity, talent, or vision that brings a subject to life and imbues it with meaning in a compelling way. Abstract art, however, often lacks this personal touch, and can sometimes be seen as simply a collection of random shapes and colors.
In conclusion, while abstract art may be appreciated by some, it does not meet the basic assumptions about the nature of art held by many people. Therefore, it should not be considered a legitimate form of Fine-Art, and should rather be called anti-art or non-art.
Please read the first part of this topic.
One thought on “Part 2: The Case for Renaming Abstract Art as “Anti-Art” instead of “Fine Art””