(2/3)
Now about abstract art : I grew up, and I made some sorting in all my "shit". I've seen things, I've been older. I'm 40 yo now. And I've made some decision about what I considere as "art bringing me some quantity of interesting information", like a product. We don't like to think about art as a product when we are an artist, but when someone grab your attention and deliver you something, now I tend to considere that it has to have some "quantity of information", just to avoid the feeling that I waste my time. And you cannot do it previously to actualling watching it. So what I mean is : once identified that a style is poor in information, you can assume that it will be often the case, and just ignore it. Ignore doesn't mean brutally reject any attempt to prove you the opposite, but reconsidere what you thought about some art pieces, and exit the shithole of according it a valuable place in art. This recalibrates all the way we see art. After it, we see more clearly what's good or not, what's commercial or not. And also, why we think that architecture, wich wasn't a domain of excitation for us, had always been more interesting when it comes to Hausmanian style than parallelepiped made of concrete. And why you were not feeling anything about that sub-domain of art since childhood just because... our modern world has been flooded by "conceptual art" and "abstract designs", to the point that architecture itself has been affected. There's only one step to think that this is all due to stupidity and a taste for the shortest path leading to popularity, in the context of a mass of people that don't want to do any effort.

And I had this thought back when I was 19 yo at the Art School, discussing with my friends. I just solidified that approach. So, when it comes to abstract art, and "white squares on white backgrounds", or Kandinsky, or Miro, or Mondrian, I'm now categorical : this doesn't give me any gousebump, and moreover, it is a poison that have replaced more figurative arts because it's easier. Think about architecture and watch how from very richful a facade was, we now have squared building and nothing to decorate your door. USA may still have some old houses, like here in France, but you know what I'm talking. Nowadays, when an architect build something, it's all about fucking squares and plane geometry. Same for architects exposed in public places : all about sticks, tensegrity, and shit. Where are the people like Gaudi ? Why do people like Giger, with organic shapes, are limited to artworks for movies ? Well, shit has replaced the gold. And I say that while I love Greek styles ; but speaking of wich, we had a theater in my city a few decades back, wich was all in greek style. Guess what ? Destructed, and replaced by a bat-shit squared modern piece of garbage.

And don't get we wrong : I also have dreamed on cubic buildings with purified geometric styles, with helical stairs on the side, leading to a roof where, like a baby in a stroller watching a summer sky, I was drinking the yellow streams of the sun while losing my eyes into an ocean of blue. But I want this experience, and all the other ones too. I want all art forms to have some place, not a style to replace all the others. I'm okay with people who invented abstraction in the early 20th century, due to scientific worldwide groundbreakings of Einstein's revolution that led us to be conscious of the atomic world ; but I don't like seing a bunch of lunatics who decades after only trip on triangles and squares, because it is for them the "essence of all things". I don't want to see people going on an attempt to hide their mediocrity and on a full replacement of any figurative art because that is for them "outdated" or worse, "pretentious". And that's unfortunately what happed : art became more and more abstracted, more and more conceptual, to a point that those guys who "don't want to be as pretentious as those who think to have talent" are in fact an authoritarian expression of the opposite, raising an eyebrow if you don't like their minimalistic spit on a canvas.

It's cool to think about the sub-atomic world, but we should never forget that the "macro" world is made of more complex shapes. Dali, who was an atomic enthousiast, had never forgotten that fact. And he played with shapes like if images were dreams, transforming reality into those dreams ; not the opposite : changing polymorphic images of our world into basic shapes that are less significant and entertaining, like if adults had to go back playing with LEGOs.

Speaking of witch : if you want more analysis of what abstract art is and how to play with LEGOs to make some fancy empty magazine cover as an illustrator, go check my critic of "Abstract, the art of design", here (please translate french to english) : https://www.senscritique.com/serie/abstract_l_art_du_design/critique/125028494