Went to see work by Steven Hood at St. Margaret’s House today. It really wasn’t as expected and at first I wasn’t keen on the abstract pieces until I’d read this:
The subject of the work ranges from the visible reality of landscape and the figure, through to abstraction. The abstract works are inspired by Nature invisible to the naked eye-made visible via technology.
Which in a way makes it easier for me to digest, plus it make me think of my own FMP but I’m not going into the realms of unseen, just closer to certain object with a different view.
While looking about I finally came up with some sort of round about logic as to why I don’t connect with abstract pieces.
There is not enough information.
Veering off a little but to use as an example…take your favourite book and remove all the descriptive words, anything that might give you a clue as to what is going on in the story or would create a picture in your mind, then you’d end up with something that would probably look like nonsense and would possibly just make you not want to read ever again, that’s what abstract art is to me unless I know the background information on it or it looks calm enough that I can just let it be without it annoying me.
If there are enough elements I can piece it together but a lot of the time I just see random squiggles/marks/shapes/colours and no actual narrative/structure :/