Thinking about this question I immediately start reflecting
on abstract art and color fields. I
think of Paul Jenkins work and the work of current day arts who create work
from “poured” colors. The content of
these works is??????? I am not
sure. Beautiful flowing color but does
that make it art? When Paissul Jenkins
first introduced the poured color fields he was working in a different
time. The goal of many artists during that
time was to find purity to find bliss, to find utopia and present it.
Jenkins time was trying to identify the mystical source of
all things and make it objective.
Artists today are still trying to identify that mystical source that
comes from no where they claim and just is there. They have made very little progress in finding
that special kind of unknowable so they link this unknowable to their feelings. How they feel about a work of
art?
Feelings do very little when it comes to the progress of
knowing something – for they are individual and unique. Perhaps subjective feelings are the largest
gulf between objectively knowing something and art, so how can art be
objectively know. How can we begin to
make progress in the aesthetic of knowing what art is and the forever idea that
art is just based on feeling?
A good starting place might be does the work and the artist
present a sense of life? A sense of life
has endless possibilities – including color fields that in the past have come
from a search for the unknowable. Perhaps the color fields of today come from
that which an artist knows, their foundation and their sense of life. The joy of the birth of something.
Featured image: "Radishes II" 11x15. Watercolor, Acrylic on Paper. Artist Christine Alfery