`Abstract art` is not abstract

Expressing the lack of abstract art

The abstract is the absolute nothing the same as it is the very everything that there is: every detail of every object in the realms of the six sense-doors. You cannot express infinity anyway else than by symbolizing it with a certain specific graphic sign, and you cannot draw the entire world and its sister onto one canvas.
There has to be some figurative element that would instill form into that which is formless, that would give a specific direction to that which turns all over, that would define a visual limit to that which is infinite, incomprehensible and beyond the sense limits of humans.

Expressing abstract? Well, the abstract can only be experienced and therefore there is no abstract art. You can not paint experience. Abstract in sculpting means leaving an empty space, unbound by any means, in painting it would mean leaving a naked canvas, spread across the entire gallery and out through it’s door, and in architecture is would probably mean erecting a painfully thin and ridiculously high pillar in outer space.

Oops!

There is nothing abstract in the “basic forms” of squares, quadrangles and lines, neither there is in the “non-colors” white and black or the “primary colors” of blue, red or yellow. These are already definitions – perceptual as recognition is, conceptual as language is and semantic as name tags are – the very opposite of abstract. More over, once you combine all these definitions into a “composition”, which is in fact the story telling of definitions, then you already got yourself pretty much and nothing less than a work of conceptual art.

But I appreciate the effort, I really do.