/lit/ - Literature

>>2023946
But I should be more specific, I enjoy much modern and contemporary art, but I'm not that into abstract art. I think all art needs subject matter, but that need not mean any kind of realism, figuration or perspective.

Here is Ashley Bickerton's "Abstract Art for People (Bad)"

Ashley Bickerton Abstract Painting for People (Bad)

>>1518990
This whole emotional response thing is bullshit. You'll need to define what constitutes emotions and then prove that other people have them. This is why I prefer the idea of art having knowledge or provoking thought. These terms are a little more clear and allow people to easily place themselves on one side of a work or the other. Either you think the thoughts and knowledge in the work is meaningless or that it holds some value.

here's some more art. Ashley Bickerton's Abstract Paintings for People: Bad.

Bickerton is looking at the idea of representation and communication. The title insinuates that previous abstract painting (pollock, newman, rothko, etc) wasn't made for people. That it was abstract in order to hide its emptiness. It contained no knowledge. He hyperbolizes communication by being redundant, smashing together all sorts of symbols for bad.