Interesting 2 discussions today, which two very different people about abstraction and the common misconceptions regarding it. The main one being that it's just slapping paint around, the sad thing being of course that the majority of artists who claim to be abstract are just slapping paint around which i wouldn't mind if they took the time to call themselves abstract expressionist or something and were done with it. once someone did an "abstract" portrait of me, which was just their usual mixes of colour and two circles representing my glasses. It was not a portrait. it wasn't even abstraction. and while it is their inalienable right to paint however they want, i think this outlines the basic point i'm making about the errors of abstraction.
Abstraction is a process by which higher concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal ("real" or "concrete") concepts, first principles, or other methods. "An abstraction" is the product of this process – a concept that acts as a super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.
Abstractions may be formed by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball retains only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, eliminating the other characteristics of that particular ball.
OR more interestingly....
In computer science, abstraction is the process by which data and programs are defined with a representation similar in form to its meaning (semantics), while hiding away the implementation details. Abstraction tries to reduce and factor out details so that the programmer can focus on a few concepts at a time. A system can have several abstraction layers whereby different meanings and amounts of detail are exposed to the programmer. For example, low-level abstraction layers expose details of the computer hardware where the program is run, while high-level layers deal with the business logic of the program.
The following English definition of abstraction helps to understand how this term applies to computer science, IT and objects:
- abstraction - a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance[1]
Abstraction captures only those details about an object that are relevant to the current perspective. The concept originated by analogy with abstraction in mathematics. The mathematical technique of abstraction begins with mathematical definitions, making it a more technical approach than the general concept of abstraction in philosophy. For example, in both computing and in mathematics, numbers are concepts in theprogramming languages, as founded in mathematics. Implementation details depend on the hardware and software, but this is not a restriction because the computing concept of number is still based on the mathematical concept.
In computer programming, abstraction can apply to control or to data: Control abstraction is the abstraction of actions while data abstraction is that of data structures.
- Control abstraction involves the use of subprograms and related concepts control flows
- Data abstraction allows handling data bits in meaningful ways. For example, it is the basic motivation behind datatype.
One can regard the notion of an object (from object-oriented programming) as an attempt to combine abstractions of data and code.
The same abstract definition can be used as a common interface for a family of objects with different implementations and behaviors but which share the same meaning. The inheritance mechanism in object-oriented programming can be used to define an abstract class as the common interface.
The recommendation that programmers use abstractions whenever suitable in order to avoid duplication (usually of code) is known as the abstraction principle. The requirement that a programming language provide suitable abstractions is also called the abstraction principle.
As any sane individual would agree, neither of these concepts, in particular the latter can justify slapping paint around or creating a nonsensical mush of blobs and lines. Whether or not you chose to take abstraction to a simplification of a group of complicated images and intermingle them with a series of complicated ideas, is to a degree irrelevant as long as the basic principle of understanding the process and reasoning is in place. It's only mainly because people slap the label of abstract onto the paintings i make that i felt the real compulsion to get a grasp of the idea about 3 years ago. I've subsequently held primarily with the computer science definition (after a lengthy conversation with software architect Dan Grimes) and this has been the direction my work has been moving in. However I got stuck in a formulaic rut, much to my frustration and also lack of realisation. And what was originally an evolving process of reinvention and evolution, but it got snagged on something and while experimenting with work still, there was becoming an exhausting and unsatisfying trend to produce the same images, experiments being routinely shot down.
In such situations there is only one thing to blame. Everything except your own approach. So I have begun a project of 25 paintings of different sizes, which will form the beginning of my 2012 work, in them i want to explore the most basic and mundane subject matter and the most complex and inexplicable subject matter. This at this point probably would be classified as pretentious, but it really isn't. It's an ambition. I want to do something totally new. I actually want to try to stick to a steadfast methodology and see it through, rather than letting the shadow of what's been done before spoil it before it's had a chance to breath. i've already completed 5 of these paintings. I'm not a great believer in lots of talk and little action. But this is the outline of the project.
With regards to other media, my main focus is now completely shifting to painting. There was something at the Picasso exhibiton at the tate that reminded me. it was standing in front of the 3 dancers, which was the painting that made me want to paint. I could look at it all day. But there was other work, like Picasso's ceramics which i liked, but lack the commitment of paintings. I feel like this applies to me also. The movement of paint, the knowledge of colour and meaning of working with it is more important. I used to be thrilled by the transformation process in ceramics but currently I don't have the ability to make them, and with that the thrill has become a frustrating idea. I need control. I want to construct on a two dimensional surface. Fuck. i dunno. the new paintings may be universally hated. but at least i will be being honest and creating something that is true to an ideal and not just pandering to other peoples pressure and my own fear.
