Abstracts and Meaning

I often wonder why viewers try to find shapes and images in abstract work.

This is a bigger question, I believe.

Does the human brain that is not truly trained in art only appreciate a work if it looks like a 

familiar image, or thing?

It amuses me when someone says "I see a bird" or "is that a cloud formation?"

It is intriguing to try to figure out what makes people appreciate an abstract, when it is

just a compilation of color, shape, and line.  Not an image at all.

Recently I had an artist of over 30 years explain his work by finding images himself.

And they were obviously random shapes that had occurred by a happy accident,

not on purpose.

And yet, as I stood there appreciating his work, he began to explain that one shape was

a silhouette and one was a bird, and one was a hand.

I looked intently at the piece and saw none of those things.

But I appreciated his use of color, and the intricacies of how they inter-played with each other.

That was not enough for him.  He demanded that I see it the way he saw it.

Do we do that as artists?

Am I demanding right now that you do not see images in my work?

When in actuality that may be the ONLY way some people see it as art at all?

When the human brain dissects a piece of art down to a bird, or a tree,

is it wrong?

I would rather challenge all of us to not ever judge someone else and how they view art.

Let the beauty truly be in the eye of the beholder.

Let them experience it any way that they must.

If an artist can do that.

Truly step back.

Truly let go of their own personal bias.

Truly paint or sculpt or draw for a higher purpose,

and NEVER feel a need to have the interpretation be theirs.

Then they have gained a higher purpose with their work.

A very difficult assignment from those of us that are tender, and longing for understanding.