I have wondered endlessly about the difference between so-called 'abstract' painting and so-called 'realistic' painting. I have wondered why I am drawn again and again to abstraction. What are the differences in the painting processes? (am I just lazy!?) How does the image impress itself? (are realistic painters more conventional?) To be sure, the questions never end, (and thank creation, because the end might be the beginning of immense boredom).
This video is a raw rap of ideas I've been mixing about in the laboratory with and that occurred to me in verbal this morning:
Rather than taking information literally from the perceptual avenue of the eyes what if…?
Abstract painting simply reflects a different orientation, (than realism).
Abstraction is like a magnifying glass on the garden rather than the garden as conventionally seen. Perhaps abstraction begins with the kinesthetic play of energy, rather than form as it is imprinted by light upon the retina of the eye.
Maybe the important question is how directly we engage with the uninhibited dynamic of the conversation, (rather than the style of the expression).
Nature is larger than our constricted (contrived, conditioned) perceptions, (when we are self-conscious). We can allow nature to transcend our self-consciousness.
