Art????

When people talk about ontology in relation to art, they are always searching for some abstract grandiose way of characterizing various things. Now, there is nothing wrong with “abstract” thought in art; in fact it is paramount in many ways to the creative process, but what puzzles me is the strong desire in critics and artists themselves to name everything, specifically in relation to the abstract. This compartmentalization of form and ideals tries incredibly hard to classify everything. Why? What good is this identification system, especially in relation to art? I will make no claims that art is somehow “elusive” and therefore not able to be understood, but rather that art is simply a reflection of a specific idea or moment, and that is all.

This is not to downplay the importance of art, as it is often the very thing which propels movement forward. The importance of the abstract though, is a means to an end. By looking at things from unusual angles or points of perception, we allow ourselves to create new ideas. The problem occurs when we apply this same way of thinking to the understanding of art. By doing this, we separate ourselves from the creative process, making it nothing more than a side point: something to reflect upon in the aftermath of it's creation. The ontology of art is art. In other words, the “being” or “essence” of art is art. It is beautiful, poetic, majestic, and awe inspiring, but it's existence is in and of itself.

This is what we need in a future poetics. A direct reflection of everything, without the incessant ego trying to name everything. When we can move away from this point, and towards a more honest and frank art, we will begin to create art, that truly reflects the universe.