Re: Abstract Art vs Realism
I agree that abstract art is more about design, yet how is a viewer able to judge whether the rendered design is true to the artist's inner vision?
I know that Picasso's work very closely reflects his inner vision, because he proved that he could render what he sees to a high degree of accuracy.
I know that my non-objective work reflects my inner vision to a lesser degree than Picasso. I say this because I have no problem honestly admitting that my visual thinking skills, and my skill with tools, fall short of mastery.
I submit that any artist who claims to be rendering thier inner vision, should be able to prove thier skills by rendering common objects. If an artist cannot draw / paint / sculpt common objects to a degree of accuracy that enables people to clearly recognise what is being rendered, then any claims to "being true to my inner vision" lack credibility.
All of this being said, it is still possible to produce artwork of compelling presence and beauty without masterful skill. It is also possible for highly skilled and technically profficient artists to produce work which lacks presence and beauty.
It is not so much about abstract vs. realism, which one is better. Every artwork exists somewhere on the spectrum between these extremes. It is about quality.