Abstraction is inherently emotionally distancing. Twenty-first century abstraction in painting often seeks, like Klee, some sort of personal or internally generated iconic mapping back to personal events and feelings, frequently veiled by obtuse references.
There is a great misconception in visual art today, a misconception that believes that great art, or at least the next great new thing, is somehow inherently impossible to understand; but as Dave Hickey points out, the techniques and means to achieve this have become almost universal, so that we have thousands of people cranking out shit that no one can understand.
The original impetus toward abstraction was to create images that were universally understood--independent of one's cultural filters. This brought out an unprecedented level of technical invention. Today this has been turned on its head: everyone seeks to be completely opaque and incomprehensible while technical invention has hit a new low, technique has almost disappeared.
Similar things have happened before--in all Mannerist epochs. History tends to judge harshly, with subsequent generations (except for a handful of specialists) often forgeting entire generations. A generation forgets quality and meaning at the risk of being dismissed. The weakness that fears making a judgement, a determination of quality, which used to be the hallmark of a critical facility, is a weakness that leads to oblivion, that generates forgettable "art". We've just passed a generation where anything goes. This is good, but after a certain point, in the end, when anything goes, everything goes, and nothing remains of interest. The confusion and ennui of a "late" mileau overcomes itself, like all empires, with its own garbage.
Posts
