Abstract
All too frequently, I use words whose meaning I’ve gleaned only vaguely from context. Occasionally this leads to some minor embarassment as I misuse a word, although most frequently this has been followed by a sense of gratitude and relief for having come to a better understanding of the word.
Sometimes, however, I’ll get so much contextual information about a word that I develop a subconscious knack for putting that word in the right place without really understanding what it means and without having any ability to define it.
Such a word is abstract. I’ve seen this word in many contexts, from art school to discussions of philosophy and the development of mental disciplines. After using the word I’ve sometimes had a sensation somewhat akin to an attack of conscience. And that may well be what it was, a small pang of guilt for having gotten away with fooling others into believing I’ve a better command over the language than is the case.
“Abstract” is a great cheater word, too. It justifies all sorts of sloppiness and can even be used to demean those who are not handicapped by such sloppiness. I’ve referred to “abstract thought” when I really meant a hunch or worse, an assumption or a prejudice. I’ve talked about “abstraction” in art when I’ve meant only a lack of form. I’ve used “abstract” to mean “vague” or “undefined.”
Finally I’ve looked it up. Turns out the word has real meaning aside from it’s value as a fudge word. Far from vague or undefined, it means essential, in the sense of an idea or a pattern stripped to its essense. Abstract art, then, is not vague or cheating art, but rather the art of forms that would underlie the formalist exercise of covering the abstracts with irrelevencies. Abstraction is more closely related to deconstructionism than it is to abstract expressionism.
This also explains why the word is used in the sense of a literary abridgment or outline. Hey, so sometimes language makes sense.
quote — “the art of forms
quote — “the art of forms that would underlie the formalist exercise of covering the abstracts with irrelevencies”
This stretches the meaning of the word too far. It also overrates most abstract artists and their art while demeaning the artists who can actually create these “irrelevancies.”
Was that just a troll???
Dad
Sure, I’d agree that many
Sure, I’d agree that many so-called abstract artists would not deserve the label, but that can be chalked up to misuse of the word, not the definition of the word. It also means for artists like Picasso, abstraction is only one aspect and not even the most important one for much of his work. Jackson Pollock would no longer fit as an abstractionist, although I think Rothko would.