My original choice of words was unclear on this point, sorry.Marcus Aurelius wrote:You are operating under the misguided assumption that non-figurative art always has some symbolic meaning that the viewer is supposed to "get" on an intellectual level. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. In fact even figurative art does not always have any kind of message or wider context beyond pure aesthetics or emotional impact.Simon_Jester wrote:A blank canvas (or a solid yellow one, which I've seen, or a painting of a Campbell soup can) is more abstract still- and the more abstract the art is, the greater the challenge in interpreting the symbolism. In the extreme limiting case, which I chose to illustrate the point, the blank canvas will not reliably mean anything to a viewer unless it is explained by some information outside the canvas.
I consider emotional impact to be part of the message a work of art conveys to the viewer. The example of Picasso's Guernica comes to mind: it's non-figurative in that it doesn't look particularly "real," but the emotional content it means to convey is very clear.
Whereas (and yes, I repeat, this is a deliberately extreme example) a blank canvas does not convey this sort of emotional content, at least not without a great deal of labor being put into context-setting as a supplement to the audience actually looking at the blank canvas.
Non-figurative art may not be trying to communicate some subtle symbolic message, but it's trying to communicate something. I would argue that this is fundamental to art: the desire to communicate a message of some kind (even if it's just "see how beautiful this configuration of boxes is" or "this is what it feels like when the world is Wrong and Horrible."*)
If you're not communicating, if there's no flow of information or ideas or feelings or impressions or anything of the sort from artist to audience, then there is no art- or whatever there is, is indistinguishable from the state of "no art." Because art is a social activity, an expression that cannot mean anything unless you are expressing something to someone. There is no such thing as art created for the benefit of the ants, or of the wind.
If the artist has to do something extra to 'explain' the artwork to the audience, then it is in some respect incomplete, which is nothing to be ashamed of in itself. But it becomes a problem if the work of 'explanation' winds up having to play the entire role of communication with the audience- as in the hypothetical case of the blank canvas.
*The Scream, and yes, I'm simplifying