I'm finally making some images again, and this came at the end of an unpromising day. Maybe too understated for some? Maybe a nothing shot? An also-ran?
I like it. Maybe crop out everything below the horizon, plus the right one-third of the sky, and call it an abstract found in nature? (Or maybe your tribute to Pride Month?)
Thanks, Evelyn. Maybe THAT explains why that rainbow was so big that day! ;-)
All "abstract" art is ultimately figurative in that it's always a metaphor for the real world as we see it in some way, or it would have no meaning or resonance. I wonder if others agree?
Okay, I am utterly unqualified to discuss the meaning and nature of abstract art, but it's not like I'm going to let that stop me:
To answer your question, I would say both 'yes' and 'no.' (Leaving aside more "figurative-adjacent" modes of abstract art a la Chagall or Picasso, and thinking in terms of more non-representative styles like those of Kandinsky, Mondrian or Rothko) I think that in order to us to mentally grasp anything, we have to be able to relate it to our own understanding. It's maybe like the old cliched problem of someone blind since birth trying to understand what all this "cyan-magenta-yellow" business is about.
But then, if we only come to understand every new thing in terms of what we already understand, the idea of metaphor becomes so diluted as to become meaningless: if everything (that we understand) is metaphor, then how can metaphor be viewed apart from our intellectual means of understanding?
Right. I have gotten way too deep for myself, and if you're still reading I have probably bored you to tears. I think I need more coffee - or else maybe a lot less coffee. ;)
You're as qualified as anybody, Evelyn, and your reply shows you're more informed than many about art. Iain McGilchrist is interesting on this topic. Ruth Carll, the moderator of the Abstract & Minimalism group has clear definitions of these two terms. She lubricates her mind with coffee too!
I like it. Maybe crop out everything below the horizon, plus the right one-third of the sky, and call it an abstract found in nature? (Or maybe your tribute to Pride Month?)
Thanks, Evelyn. Maybe THAT explains why that rainbow was so big that day! ;-)
All "abstract" art is ultimately figurative in that it's always a metaphor for the real world as we see it in some way, or it would have no meaning or resonance. I wonder if others agree?
Okay, I am utterly unqualified to discuss the meaning and nature of abstract art, but it's not like I'm going to let that stop me:
To answer your question, I would say both 'yes' and 'no.' (Leaving aside more "figurative-adjacent" modes of abstract art a la Chagall or Picasso, and thinking in terms of more non-representative styles like those of Kandinsky, Mondrian or Rothko) I think that in order to us to mentally grasp anything, we have to be able to relate it to our own understanding. It's maybe like the old cliched problem of someone blind since birth trying to understand what all this "cyan-magenta-yellow" business is about.
But then, if we only come to understand every new thing in terms of what we already understand, the idea of metaphor becomes so diluted as to become meaningless: if everything (that we understand) is metaphor, then how can metaphor be viewed apart from our intellectual means of understanding?
Right. I have gotten way too deep for myself, and if you're still reading I have probably bored you to tears. I think I need more coffee - or else maybe a lot less coffee. ;)
You're as qualified as anybody, Evelyn, and your reply shows you're more informed than many about art. Iain McGilchrist is interesting on this topic. Ruth Carll, the moderator of the Abstract & Minimalism group has clear definitions of these two terms. She lubricates her mind with coffee too!