Abstract art, especially
painting, is art with no
subject -- or rather, the subject is the art itself. By removing the "
picture" from the picture, the
artist is free to concentrate their
effort on
Commonly called the
plastic elements of art. (This list is
illustrative not
definitive)
It is these elements that determine the quality of a painting -- not the subject. The subject of an Abstract Painting is the painting itself.
In response to
Gamaliel -- I disagree with your analysis.
Picasso painted representationally. His
cubist paintings, often mistaken for abstract art, are simply another way to look at
real things. The abstract paintings of
Ad Reinhart or
Robert Motherwell are a different
kettle of fish entirely.
Piet Mondrian was a
minimalist.
Further response -- I am glad you brought in a different
perspective -- my responses are in no way to be construed as attacks.
As a painter, it makes perfect sense to use the term in such a narrow fashion. Using the term Abstract as a catch all for any painting not strictly representational weakens it, removes its power and accuracy. It causes the lumping together of cubism, futurism, dada, abstract expressionism, minimalism, surrealism, etc, under one umbrella. These are distinct schools of art with different motivations, different points to make.
The artists you list are all theoretically quite different -- it's similar to grouping a Harley, a VW Beetle, a Cadillac, and a bicycle together and saying 20th Century transportation is enough to describe them all.
I would like to call your attention to Gamaliel's dissent below -- after careful reading, I believe we both have a valid point, and in the end, the decision, like all art decisions, will be made
in the eye of the beholder.