PHOTO CREDIT: Andrea Piacquadio.
IT’S A DEBATE that’s been raging for years, and as someone of the Neo-Baroque persuasion, I would be remiss if I didn’t offer my two cents on the subject. Is abstract art really art? My verdict:
Yes. Although it depends.
In my opinion, Pablo Picasso was to art what Jimi Hendrix was to music. The amount of creativity and originality involved and how he could break the form up and, in so doing, make it come together is nothing short of artistically brilliant.
But the awesomeness of Hendrix doesn’t make Mozart any less so. There will always be a market for the classics. So. should abstract art continue to be the only form of art that anyone has seemed to give a shit about since the beginning of the twentieth century? Ummm, fuckin’ no?
Some abstract art, such as Picasso, I love, but some people are just taking the piss. Take Mark Rothko, for example. Rothko’s surrealist work is solid. But then I think he must have hit his head, or maybe he didn’t adequately ventilate his studio when cracking out the paint thinner because that’s when he started with all that rectangle shit:
I’m sorry, but it’s not art. He’s only demonstrating the most remedial entry-level colour theory and basic composition, which the average career artist would have already mastered in their first semester of art school. Fine for the purpose of home decor. It would look great on a wall. If it wasn’t for Rothko’s prior name recognition, it would be in the wall art section of Bed Bath & Beyond and not an art museum. $82 million for No. 10? I’ll give him fifty bucks. Final offer, take it or leave it.
No. 10? More like No. 2. If you know how to use Adobe Color and can operate a paintbrush with enough proficiency to draw a rectangle, great! You’re as good as Rothko was in his later years. Enjoy your $82 million, you lucky prick.
I know Rothko fans are going to pack a shit upon hearing that:
“How can you, of all people, take a shit on poor old Rothko? You’re one to talk. You’re digital art. Dickhead. 🤬”
I’m still better than Rothko. Hell, whoever does all those rude cartoons at the back of porn mags is better than Rothko.
So I’ve heard 🤥.
I’ll give the guy points for originality. But, considering it’s now 2025, and all he did was paint rectangles on a canvas, you would think that everyone’s breath would have returned to them, and their agape jaws would have returned to a closed position already.
The challenge in being an artist is having something to say. Even a hyper-realistic representational artist will bore their audience if they don’t have original ideas to express or some kind of story to tell; otherwise, once everyone’s awe wears off after five minutes, you will have a short shelf life, and you might as well be a photographer.
The problem, for me, is when the artist is all concept and no skill. If it’s just an idea devoid of artistry, then it’s not art, it’s commentary in visual form and should be filed under “memes.”
If someone puts a crapper in the middle of a gallery and invites the punters to come on in and take a dump, then calls it:
“an exploration of our relationship with capitalism in a post-industrial society…”
…then it’s not only pretentious shit and a major health code violation, with the punters themselves making most of the contribution, but it’s an esoteric, post-modern form of performance art, not visual art and should be filed under “interactive entertainment.”
“Invisible sculptures” and bananas duct-taped on a wall? File that under “post-modern comedy and practical jokes.”
That shit belongs in a carnival, not an art gallery. If it’s your thing, fine. Get your own damn building.
I’m sick of hearing about how my particular brand of buffoonery isn’t welcome in the highfalutin world of art. My buffoonery is as good as anyone else’s. And if modern art isn’t legitimized buffoonery, I don’t know what is. Art is for the eyes. If you want to think, read a book, dickhead.
Representational hyperrealism, devoid of concepts, is an artist flexing their skill. Hyper-conceptual, non-representational art, devoid of technical proficiency, is an artist flexing how clever they are. The work of the representational artist holds objective value because skill objectively translates to quality.
If it’s all concept and no skill, then all of the value goes to the artist and not the work itself. This only serves to benefit the artist’s name, career, legacy, ego, and bank balance and provides no objective value to the work itself other than the subjective value conferred upon it by the consensus of the art establishment.
As soon as they collectively change their minds and decide that it really is as dumb as it looks, its value drops to zero. Representational wins.
It’s all subjective at the end of the day. But why does the audience for abstract art continue to be prioritized over that of representational art? Seriously, who do we have to screw around here to go back to looking at paintings that actually look good? We gravitated towards abstract art because we were bored with representational art. With the invention of photography, abstract art made things interesting. Now that most people are bored with the invention of photography, surely they’re bored with abstract art? Can’t we just go back to appreciating representational art again?
A friend wants to know. One with child support, alimony, and loan sharks to pay.
G. Billington Evans is a New Zealand-based visual artist, satirical writer, and the owner of THEARTOFGEVANS.COM.
