Re: Abstract Art vs Realism
Non representational art is not abstract. Any representational art is an abtraction of the objest it represents. An object in it's own right, if it is well crafted, should be able to convey an emotional context even if it is not an abstact representaion of a recognisable form.
To use an example.; Guernica by Picasso is definatly abstract art, while a painting by Franz Kline, who was labelled an Abstract Expressionist actually painted objects that were not abstractions.
I know some of you might think this is picking nits, and in a way it is, but if you start thinking about "Object In It's Own Right" when you view abtract art and think "Abstract" when you view representational art and realize that the labels are incorrect, it might be easier to grasp the emotional context of a form that has no historical context for you.
Music is emotional, creates endorphins, gives me goose bumps. Great art, and that in my book includes roller coasters, stage, film, food, wine, architecture, automobiles, landscapes, painting and sculpture (sorry if I missed one of yours) must elicit a response or it is not great. Putting it into a box with a label is an intellectual exersize that is done after the fact, but it does give one a lot to talk about.