Philosophy – “Why Abstract Art is not Art” – 6/5/2020

Abstract. By its definition on Google, it means:

  • Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Such means, that it cannot be a creation, though only a disfigurement of one. By what art refers to, it is always a creation, something materialized into shape. Though, if art is not physical, not made as a shape, then it is not made, not created.

Therefore, Abstract Art cannot be art, if it was never created, never an expression, because it never even took place on the canvas.

Such means, that Abstract Art is the disorder or destruction of all objective art. If it never had a physical presence, never made an awareness to a familiar world, then it was never created. Is art not a creation of something? Don’t we create art? If so, then Abstract Art is not the creation of art, as much as it is the destruction of it.

In this sense, one can relate Abstract Art to the car driver who got into a bad accident, and now becomes a quadriplegic.

If art is creation, and we, as humans, create art, then again, what is Abstract Art? Just like one cannot create destruction, though only destroy what has been created, it is the same with Abstract Art.

That is, Abstract Art is destruction, incarnate. It is the essence of disorder, not a making of anything except the dismantling and deconstruction of structure. It can’t be art, in that sense, if one is merely using art as a tool to destroying something, rather than create something. In fact, it wouldn’t even be a tool to destroy something, as much as Abstract Art is just a device to destroy art.

Once more, if art is a creation, then Abstract Art is the destruction of all creation. It is the enactment of pessimism, and if we are those who express pessimism, then we may as well all be victims of suicide.