The Brooklyn Rail

1. Is there a sensibility to abstract artwork at this moment? If so, how would you characterize it? 

There is a sensibility to abstraction in this particular moment. In Western art history, artists leaned towards abstraction during complex political atmospheres. For example, the Russian Constructivists made thought-provoking geometric abstraction using subtle symbolism and titles to engage class issues and political ideologies during the Russian civil war. Similarly, so much is happening in our world today regarding human rights issues, and multiple oppositional thoughts surround each subject. Abstraction can be a place to engage sensitive and thought-provoking topics, but the sensibilities towards it are slightly convoluted by the power of the art market, which is more influential today than ever. While thought-provocation may be a reason for artists, curators, and critics to lean towards abstraction, it’s important to recognize that the market also influences the types of works that are exhibited in both commercial galleries and public institutions. It’s the reason why the sensibility around abstraction right now doesn’t quite feel natural. 

 

2. Is there an avant-garde? If so, what is its nature?

My understanding of the avant-garde within art is having some sort of new, unusual, or experimental ideas. So, yes, there is an avant-garde taking place in the arts today. The special respect and attention given towards artists of color, women, and Indigenous artists has brought in new voices with different ideas that were previously dismissed, and this continues to challenge the status quo. These practices are not necessarily embedded in abstraction; they span multiple art disciplines. The avant-garde, in this case, is the collection of voices of marginalized artists using multiple forms of art to express themselves and engage the politics of today. 

I’m also compelled to mention that the Black figurative art movement of the past eight years was, in itself, a global avant-garde. It celebrated Blackness, but also contributed to the inclusivity of other underrepresented artists. 

 

3. Has the sensibility towards abstraction become academic? If so, what are its characteristics?

Not in all cases, but abstraction easily lends itself to academia, since there’s a lot of room to consider between meanings, forms, and theoretical concepts. An abstract painter has an opportunity to use symbols, gestures, and the material itself to mold a visual language that addresses the aesthetics of artmaking and socio-political topics. For instance, Julie Mehretu’s painterly gestures, lines, and grids correspond to the mapping of migrations and the socio-politics of the urban landscape. Similarly, Tomashi Jackson’s use of color and materials allows the artist to elaborate deeply on the systemization of injustice and human rights issues. The work of both artists is embedded in research with the utmost intentionality, and this knowledge contributes to the aesthetics of their artmaking. In a sense, some of the most interesting abstract work traverses between inside and outside of academia. Time will tell how abstract work from this era will be perceived in the future.

 

4. Has the condition of abstract art changed? Has the acceleration of communication and the increased attention of social media made the pioneering abstract artists of yesterday into today's academy? Has this affected the artist? Does the growth of art schools affect the abstract artists of the moment?

The condition of abstract art changed long before social media, but the technology has accelerated the speed of knowledge dissemination. Abstract art, aesthetically and conceptually, was a revolutionary movement when it first emerged in Western society amidst the Post-Impressionist era. It was not popular when Francis Picabia and Vasily Kandinsky made their first abstract paintings at the start of the twentieth century. However, by the mid-twentieth century, the aesthetic of abstraction became popular to the point that it had been used in fashion and as decorative art. Therefore, the challenge and the condition of abstract art today is distinguishing artistic practices that still carry both conceptual and aesthetic values in line with the standards set by those who pushed the boundaries within Western abstraction.

What’s even more inspiring in the contemporary art scene today is the growing knowledge that abstraction did not originate in Western society but comes from various Indigenous peoples across the globe. Naturally, with this knowledge, some of those boundaries set long ago are expanding. Curators for respected Western institutions such as the Venice Biennale, São Paulo Bienal, and MoMA are presenting works by Indigenous and other non-Western artists who, in the past, wouldn’t have been considered in the canon. For example, Tadáskía, Rubem Valentim, and Agnès Waruguru, are Brazilian and Kenyan artists that have been recognized in recent years. Valentim’s abstract paintings and sculptures are embedded in mythical values of an Afro-Brazilian culture. Furthermore, there are many Aboriginal Australian artists who are not included in the conversation of abstraction because their pattern-making practice is not yet accepted within the boundaries of Western abstraction. So, there is still a lot of ground to cover through the academic institutions, but generally, the growth of these art schools can allow for such expanded knowledge and critical conversations.

 

5. Is there the same division between abstraction and representation as formerly? How has this relationship changed? 

There’s still a division between abstraction and representation, but it’s not as strict as the division that existed in mid-twentieth century during the time of Barnett Newman, Agnes Martin, or Lee Krasner. In that era, artists argued about different concepts and schools of thought—so the abstract gang did not allow any figuration. In fact, one was considered a traitor if they jumped ship (consider Philip Guston). There were other artists in the mid-twentieth century who worked in both abstraction and representation—Romare Bearden and Frank Bowling, neither of whom found success during that period. Bowling’s legitimate need to include the map of South America didn’t do him justice, but he’s found acceptance in recent years. Similarly, there are artists who work in both abstraction and representation today—and it’s totally acceptable, which would not have been the case in the era of Abstract Expressionism. Firelei Báez, Hugo McCloud, Devin B. Johnson, and Layo Bright’s practices include figuration and abstraction. The boundaries are blurred, and artists can operate in all areas with little impunity. This is a big shift in the tradition of boundaries set by medium. Although I think it’s still an important part of painting practice, “painting for painting sake” is no longer radical. In fact, it gave artists the permission to paint only about the painting itself and no other significant subject. Expanding the limitations within abstraction can allow for equally important and radical voices to be heard from beyond Western society—and this is exactly what’s taking place today.