Abstracted

Abstraction. Void of realism. Absence of recognizable form. Shapes and removal of meaning. An expression of the artist, revealed by the raw form of the materials and their application.

But what of the use of geometry? Artists such as Mondrian, Malevich, Newman? Paintings where squares or rectangles form the basis of the work?

The issue I have is that geometry itself is displaying recognizable form - directly contrary to what Abstraction is about. While a coloured circle is in itself not linked to anything figurative, once placed in succession with 2 other vertically aligned circles, coloured red, orange and green... we have traffic lights. If we can simplify that down, then any geometrical shape can mean any number of things to any number of people. They can be representations of things; either consciously or unconsciously.

The biggest problem though is that they hold recognizable form. People can tell it is a particular shape because it follows the simple guidelines for creating that shape. A square has four equal sides with right angled corners. It not only is recognizable but also is limiting the expression that an artist can have, because he must follow these guidelines.

But one would call Mondrian an abstract painter, because he didn't not paint anything in particular. His squares and lines do not link themselves to anything in the natural world. He did not paint rolling landscapes or courageous military generals on horseback. They are arrangements of colour.
But are they? Or are they in fact extremely realistic in their depiction of what blue, red and yellow rectangles are?

Food for thought...