If you would, for a moment, take a look through this little gallery.
Now, look through this one.
Isn’t there a part of you, when looking at the first four examples, that says, ‘gosh, I could do something like that,’ or ‘hey, that looks like what my second grader brought home from art class yesterday.’?
And when you look at those second examples — really study them, see all the precision and the detail, the depth and light, what do you think? That you could replicate that? Probably not.
Some folks say that abstract art is real art, that abstract art is real art, and all the ‘experts’ have long since settled that.
But the counterargument to the first position is that the topic of abstract art is still being argued — go glance through all sorts of chats on Reddit or Quora or what have you. And, if everything is subjective, including art (more on the background of abstract art soon) then heck, what the ‘art experts’ say is subjective too. Maybe in my reality abstract art isn’t real art. Once you dip into the realm of complete subjectivity, arguments and so-called experts really begin to lose all credence.
Others argue that abstract art can’t be real art, because real art takes skill, that it has to be more than a ‘my kid could do that.’
However there’s also a rebuttal to this second position, as it’s argued by those in the abstract art community that truly good abstract art does require skill: knowledge of color theory and aesthetics and textures and so on. A kindergartener’s scribble is not the same as a Pollock painting.
As may be clear, my personal opinion is that abstract art is not real art. Sure, sometimes it can be pretty to look at, but I would argue it takes a lot more skill to make something that replicates or reflects something real. I know several highly talented artists, and it takes them a lot of time to get shading or shape right. I would not call myself an artist, but I certainly dabble, and the pieces of abstract art I made in high school classes were always far easier than realism assignments. There’s also an interesting in-between space that should be mentioned. For example, on one YouTube video I saw someone making a wave with paint pouring and a blow dryer. Is that abstract art? Is it impressionism? Is impressionism belong under the category of realism or abstract art? Historically, it was a sort of bridge between the two. It wasn’t total departure from recognizable forms, but in a way it reflected the general culture of humanism and loss of purpose. I’m not really sure.
I’ll also add that it’s worth recalling that either abstract art or ‘real’ art (it’s hard to find dipomatic terms to make the distinction, so please pardon me) can be used for sinful or unbeautiful purposes. Abstract art got started in the late 1800s to early 1900s, a time period in which wars, changes in technology and government, new philosophies, and other factors led to many believing in nihilism and complete subjectivity — something which is at fundamental odds with Christianity. And this shows, since we have pieces like Duchamp’s ‘Fountain,’ literally a toilet he picked up and put on display. More scatalogical and even blasphemous ‘art pieces’ were quick to follow. It all reflected a loss of meaning, a hatred of tradition, and a rejection of absolutes.
As well, there’s videos on the internet of people doing things like taking off their sunglasses and setting them out on display, leading museum patrons to stand there and stroke their chins and search for some sort of deeper meaning in a pair of sunglasses. If just anything can be qualified as art, doesn’t that make the term ‘art’ lose all its meaning?
But there are also plenty of classical art pieces that I don’t find beautiful or wholesome. Take ‘The Galatian Suicide,’ a Greek marble sculpture showing a man stabbing himself with a sword. Sure, it took skill, but that’s not appealing — it’s gruesome.
Really, the debate boils down to how one defines art. Oxford Languages, your first result on a Google search, defines art thus:
Noun 1.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. (Emphasis mine.)
Abstract art would seem to fit within this definition. (Mostly. It’s still unclear to me what sort of beauty or emotional power a toilet would have.) But I feel like this definition falls a little short. By this definition, grafittied vulgarities sprayed across a wall would be art. After all, they have emotional power, and it’s an either/or between that and beauty. Additionally, those who study color theory and marketing know that the color red can evoke hunger in the viewer — thus why so many fast food chains use it in their logos. There’s emotional power in the Chick-fil-a logo. Does that make it art?
You could say it is, if you want to remain consistent with your definition. But then we’re stepping back into subjectivity. An argument could be made for anything having emotional power. So if art is anything, it really becomes nothing.
I would define art as something that involves skill, beauty, and goodness. Beauty and goodness are sort of tied up together, but for the sake of being completely comprehensive, I’ll keep them separate. From a Christian perspective, there should be no separation between secular and sacred. All realms of life are subject to God and to truth. And the truth is that sinful language is evil and ugly, even if the vandalizer is very good at his grafitti style. To the Christian, complete subjectivity is impossible.
But what about any of the abstract paintings above? None of them show anything wicked, or convey any sort of evil meaning. Are they beautiful? Do they invoke any sort of emotional reaction?
Again, the definition is key. My argument is that, to the Christian, saying that art is that which produces an emotional reaction will not cut it. Art must be beautiful and good.
And some do indeed find abstract art beautiful. I… don’t. Not really. At least not most of the big, famous pieces. None of those above pieces are, to me, very appealing. I think a good piece of abstract art, with tasteful colors and shapes, can be appealing. I think a piece of abstract art can look very nice in, say, home decor. But it’s not the same as if I put up one of my artist friends’ pieces. In that case, that piece is meant to stand out. It’s meant to be gazed at, admired, or studied. In terms of home design, an abstract art is there to blend the various color choices, or to fill a blank wall, or to draw the eye. It can be pretty, but it’s not on the level of a higher beauty.
Abstract art has an unfortunate basis in anti-God beliefs. According to that worldview, God does not exist, and therefore His purpose for mankind does not either. Man must invent his own reason for existing. AnswersInGenesis discusses this in an article on transhumanism I highly recommend reading. This view that says all is subjective and man gets to define things is called a poietic view, contrasted with the mimetic. AnswersInGenesis defines those terms thusly:
A mimetic outlook views nature (including human nature) as already reflecting a given, purposeful orderliness. In contrast, a poietic view sees nature as malleable, shapable substrate from which individuals must construct their own meaning.
It is, essentially, the traditional Biblical view versus existentialism, and its natural offspring, nihilism. Now this isn’t to say that all abstract artists think of the world in this way. But to hold some random splatterings of paint on the same level of beauty as a da Vinci shows a fundamental sense of subjectivism and a disconnect from any objective definition of beauty. I don’t think the swipes and smears of random brush movements should be admired as much as an intricate, time-consuming sketch. One took far, far more effort and skill. I think a distinction ought to be made between beauty and aesthetics. I think art ought to be a high and refined category.
The crux of the abstract-art argument (or rather, non-argument, given its self-defeating nature,) is that art can really be defined as anything.
But if art is anything, what is an artist? Someone who does anything? Man tries to define and delineate who he is and what he does. It’s in our nature as created, purposeful beings. We seek to understand. So why on earth would we invent a term that incapsulates anything and then personify ourselves as doers of that anything? There’s no meaning to that at all. Those who are in favor of abstract art will just try to pish-posh arguments away with a statement like this. Abstract art ‘pushes the boundaries of art,’ they’ll say. It’s begging the question, assuming that abstract art already is art, when its being is still in debate.
Plenty of folks on those online chat forums throw up their hands about the argument and say it’s none of their business if rich people want to fork out ridiculous amounts of cash for abstract art. Others see it for what it is — being avant-garde and, to put it nicely, ‘farting in the general direction of’ tradition and order. Some abstractionists admit they like upsetting people, dismissing structure, and in general trying to redefine themselves. It’s also evident from reading these people’s comments that they have a misconstrued view of morality or have been seriously lied to and indoctrinated, and that they’re generally angry and rebellious.
And that’s a sad thing. The things these people produce are reflective of an internal broken, purposeless, searching, confused state. It’s like watching someone announce that he’s gay now and has redefined himself, while you know it’s because of his broken family life and abusive father who’s turned him away from what he thought was masculinity.
But I know where the other side would take this. Finding what the average people are saying online doesn’t count, they’d say. It’s what the ‘experts’ argue that matters. And here we are, back at objectivity, because to have experts, we must have knowledge and authority, neither of which can exist without clear definition. See how it tears itself apart?
And finally, there are some who claim abstract art is real art, because art doesn’t boil down to beauty or form or anything like that — art is self-expression.
Well, there at least we have a consistent definition… ish. Art is self-expression… so the depressed man who flings blue paint across a canvas to represent his emotions is creating art. So the toddler throwing a temper tantrum to express his emotions is art, right? So the chalk scrawlings of a lunatic on his cell walls to express the deranged output of his mind is art? Hm.
No, friends, art is more than emotion. This isn’t to say that emotion can’t lend a hand in creating art. Sometimes the best passages I write are the ones in which I am seized by an emotion that I feel or seek to portray. But the fact that I feel emotion and it spills onto the page doesn’t make my work art. In truth, sometimes what I write in the throes of feeling is absolute garbage. Besides, as S.D. Smith likes to discuss, art from a Christian standpoint should not be a selfish thing. To directly quote him, ‘our self-expression does not entitle us to the attention of other people.’ People are encouraged to be narcissistic and entitled in this day and age, and believe that their emotions and opinions ought to be held up on a pedestal for others to see. And to return to the exact phrasing of the self-expression argument, what was Michelangelo self-expressing when he painted the Sistine Chapel? What me-centered self-expressing is my sister doing when she paints a gorgeous mountain scene for my dad’s birthday? Is their work not art?
The self-expression argument is really only made when the messy, disjointed, jarring results of a disturbed mind are held up as equal with stunning works of skill and beauty. It robs the word ‘art’ of any definite meaning and serves as an excuse for those who believe their creations worthy of public attention, merited or not.
So really, it seems to me that every argument made by those who think abstract art to be real art is self-defeating. Definitions are vague and cloudy, if they’re even brought up at all. And it’s all based in the origin of abstract art, which was a desire for self-redefinition, subjectivity, and wild rebellion.
We can’t stand for that as Christians. If we believe in a purposeful Creator God, Who made truth for us to discover, not make on our own, then we cannot be in line with things that try to distort the nature of truth, goodness, and beauty. We don’t get to define those. God does.
And that is why abstract art, by the nature of its conception, is not truly art.
Have a great week, guys. Cheers!
For Further Study: (note: I disagree with Klavan’s views on evolution, but nonetheless there is good food for thought in here.)
Leave a Reply