Wrestling: formalism vs. representation, and a vent

Hey friendly fellow-sculptors,

Here I want to present my thoughts on our current Fabricated Item project and to spit out my frustration in a constructive, challengeable, and response-provoking way. These ideas are meant to be rough, and they do not support a unified thesis statement I am asserting to be true.

[I should note that I don't mind expressing my strong thoughts, even if they brazenly conflict with others'. I should also note that I know many of my thoughts might be biased, narrow-minded, or yet to be enlightened. Since we ourselves and our minds morph every single day that we live, we cannot comprehend any timeless, universal truth. This is to say: these thoughts are today's thoughts. I invite anybody to wrestle with the beliefs I will present and challenge them. Please, in the pursuit of understanding, inspire and enlighten me to see things your way!]

What is abstract, non-representational art capable of conveying? (By this I mean forms, lines, colors, and shapes that, when they are arranged, bear no discernible resemblance to a visual truth with which we are familiar. As in, a painting, sculpture, drawing, building, etc. on which people cannot agree: "That is supposed to be chair!" or "That looks like a rainbow!" or "That must be Noah's Ark!" or "That's a human!" or "It's imitating a mountain!".) When a work or part of a work is a mass of lines and colors, can it convey a complex idea? Can it convey emotion? Where does it fall short/what realm of meaning, if any, can it not access?

These are the questions I have been asking myself while trying to translate ideas for sculptures into non-representational, abstract art in my head. I have decided that this kind of art cannot convey specific, complex ideas. It is not barred from conveying generalized, simple emotions (which, I grant, are ideas), nor is it incapable of eliciting an emotional response in its viewers. However, any reaction which a viewer might have will be reactionary and basic. For instance, upon seeing a sculpture of a solid blue cube which occupies the entirety of a large room, ceiling to floor, wall to wall, a viewer might feel overwhelmed at the mass of the object. He might feel oppressed by its size, or confused at the relationship of its size to its color, but he will not be able to mine out from the piece any discernible idea. The piece could not reasonably be said to be about the French Revolution, or any aspect of gender roles, or about our mortality, or anything which requires us to use mental capacity. The positive function of this art is to engage our involuntary, animalistic responses. It can confuse us, scare us, overwhelm us with chaos, draw us in with mystery, and calm us in with its harmony of elements.

Making sure that my animalistic, level-1 thought processes are in working order is all well and good, but, as long as this is the desired goal of a piece, I don’t believe that art’s potential is being maximized. Art is capable of invoking the deepest emotions and intellectual curiosity, and for us to focus on creating pieces which don’t demand that messages are actualized in the language of the piece (as in, they don’t convey real thoughts through our manipulation of the wood and metal), is us missing the point. I understand that studying how separate components in a piece create meaning will invariably make us better artists, and I understand that this assignment forces us to develop our formalistic skills (such as woodworking and welding) more than the previous project did, but I do not think that any of our results can be meaningful. I feel more like we are practicing our construction skills so that we may, later on, make art which is richer. And, although thinking about unrealized potential makes me salivate, I am sad that I must now invest ample thought and hours of labor into a piece which cannot offer a thoughtful experience to its viewers.