I had a theory the other day. Shall I start by telling a story? I think I shall.

My sister plays in a youth orchestra. The orchestra rehearses in a rather large, very old Presbyterian church. The fellowship hall, where rehearsals are held, hosts art shows on a regular basis. The walls are always hung with artwork which seems to change at random intervals. (I haven't sorted out their schedule yet. ) It's all contemporary and local artists, usually, so the styles are new and vastly different. And sometimes it's very... avante-garde.

My dad has never been a fan of modern art. Most of you have probably heard jokes about blobs of paint thrown at a canvas and called artwork being comparable to finger painting by a three-year-old. Well, last week I was standing in rehearsal staring at a huge, 12' oil painting that was simply red, yellow and orange blobs, and I was struck with a sudden thought. It's an essence.

Hanging on another wall were two pieces that were a set, called "Blue in my head." they looked like sort of cloudy blue and purple swirls, but they made a bit more sense then the giant red one. What jumped into my head was the graphics Jay has made of essences.



Does it make sense? No. Would I call it a masterpiece of artwork? No. See, the problem with modern art is that is mislabeled. It's essence. It's the artist trying to capture a mood or a feeling and put it in a visual format, the way advanced essence maps do.

And thus I managed to explain essence and modern art in a satisfactory way to myself in one fell swoop. Thoughts?

That is extremely interesting, Vanya. It actually makes me appreciate modern art. 'Course, it would be nice if they would tell us what it is an essence of.

eru

Exactly. They're marketing it as the wrong thing.

Great explanation, Vanya! I may now look at modern art through different eyes.

Reflections like these are one of the many reasons we like keeping you around, Katie.

Haha, thanks, Seer. I'm glad it makes sense outside of my head. It's going to be really funny seeing art galleries from now on, I'll be laughing over a private joke no one else in my family gets as they complain about modern art...

As an artist who actually enjoys (good) abstract art, I would say this is accurate. Of course there's plenty of bad modern art, just like there's lots of bad representative art, and some of it I don't like, but some of it is quite good.

I think I would hazard to say the aim of visual art in general is to capture the essence of things. It's just abstract art wants to do that metaphorically instead of literally depicting it. It sometimes is trying to depict emotions/situations that aren't normally something visual, or to make you look at the world in a new way. Or that's what GOOD abstract art does.

My favorite art is someone like Van Gogh who mixes both abstract and literal components to create something that captures both the scene and the emotions/feelings behind it.

* chuckles * That's exactly my take on it, Katie. In my experience, the "modern art" pieces that I most dislike are the ones with essences that I dislike, of which there are many in that genre.