>>5890253OP here, I kind of agree. I don't like most modern abstract work that I see. Most of it seems contrived. Art "scenes" or "movements" just seem like circle jerks of people extrapolating upon each others stylistic ideas while trying to hide the fact that they're copying each other and disguise a lack of meaning with some kind of self ascribed meta meaning. I try to limit my exposure to post impressionist art as to not compromise the state of mind I'm trying to reach by painting and keep my influence as internal as possible.
I don't pretend that my art has an objective underlying meaning or that I'm trying to articulate anything inherent. However, that isn't to say that it's devoid of meaning, just that the ideas being expressed are coming from an unconscious place. Painting for me is about the physical action. It's a deeply personal act of tapping in to a primitive part of the self that has been abandoned. Reaching a flow state, working from the id and abandoning the persona is a very fulfilling feeling. Time escapes oneself, judgement is suspended, impulses are acted on freely. The painting isn't done when it reaches some resolution or conveys some message, it's done when that state is lost and the critical voice of assessment returns and I begin to view the painting as an object.
You're right about the typical response the modern artist has to the critique of their work. It's easier to reject the response of the viewer and assume some higher intellectual position than it is to call into question the very purpose of why they're doing what they're doing. Art is about status for most people. They're trying to desperately grasp to the idea that they're expressing something at such a high level that the rest of the world is just too dense to see it. It's way easier to try to justify and delude themselves than it is to abandon all preconceived notions about art itself and call it what it is. It's bullshit, but it's bullshit that feels good to make.
