Abstraction

Yeah, in honor of Texas :-)
WARNING: this entry is definitely written from the perspective of someone extremely far on the religious right, so don't get all pissy when the G-word (God, and not as a swear word) is mentioned or the Bible is listed as a moral authority.
It is common among members of the religious right and other traditionalist movements to discredit abstract art as an extension of postmodernist relativistic thought. Its merit is not recognized in the canon of Conservatism, tes this may be a shameful incident of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Man's ability to create art is one facet of the image of god in which the human race was made; therefore art is not merely aesthetically beautiful but a manifestation of the Divine within us. In seeing the value of art, its definition must be kept to a somewhat narrow understanding while the product of that definition is organic from culture to culture. Any work done with the elements of art (line, shape, color, etc.) in mind is art. This definiteion also applies to music and its elements (tone, rhythm, meter, etc.) as a form of artistic expression as well. Absract art is that which uses as its content only the elements of art rather than a form found in nature or its representations, which does not preclude patterns or designs inspired by nature. Biblically, mandates against recreating God's handiwork as decorations of the Temple and the Second Commandmentprovide for art which is not a direct depiction of nature. In fact, in practicing the creation of an abstract piece may be the only way in which humanity fully reflects the creativity of deity: even when constructing works of fantasy we merely cobble together fragments of Creation to design creatures that are a remix of the originals. In abstraction, however, any form may be imagined and not limited by natural laws and the finity of man. Rather than decrying modern art as a postmodernist trend signifying the abolition of absolute values in beauty and truth, Christians should ponder the potential cultural relevance of a Renaissanceof ancient Jewish artistic guidelines. Historically, abstract art has always had significance: Biblical Jews used only abstrat forms in art; Turks and Persians have always used similarly unrepresentational designs in their carpets - which nobody wuld exclude as a true form of art; the 20th Century ushered in modern art. This is not to say that religious icons smeared in waste are masterpieces, for art may also be defined as beauty for beauty's own sak, and the defamation of a valued and revered image is diametrically in opposition to such lofty and pure ideals. In many cases, such as forms of folk art, form does follow function as in vases, quilts, etc., wherein the aesthetic value of an object is a reflection of its function. Here the line between utility and beauty is greyed, but this is no indication of any corruption of either purpose but a mingling of the results. Some argue the value of the work of Jackson Pollock and John Cage; Pollock seems more like an exercise in physics and Cage as... nothing. These are the examples of when the definition of art is stretched too far to gain any true understanding of beauty, but there are certainly instances in which the idea of a "picture" can be forsaken and the result still be edifying.

P.S. odd lapse in the politicizing... I'll be back to normal next time, seriously. Sorry - keep reading.