I've been reading Iain McGilchrist's book The Matter with Things and it's been amazing to see how much our society has been focused on the left hemisphere thinking, which categorizes and divides whole things into parts.
There was a quote that I saved but lost in my notes.
I'll paraphrase it:
He said that in those with right brain damage, the art lacks "depth" or a world around it. Instead the items are in some dead space.
That explains what you said about abstract art that has random lines and shapes. They too lack depth or a world, isolated.
“Not abstract enough” has really got me thinking and I don’t know if I understand it.
Is it that post modern thought said “beauty and narrative are arbitrary, look! anything can be anything.” And then proceeded to try to show how anything can be anything, which broke our dream for more and higher?
Is what you’re saying that the drive for higher beauty in the absolute expression is Good and also technically more “abstract?”
I've been reading Iain McGilchrist's book The Matter with Things and it's been amazing to see how much our society has been focused on the left hemisphere thinking, which categorizes and divides whole things into parts.
There was a quote that I saved but lost in my notes.
I'll paraphrase it:
He said that in those with right brain damage, the art lacks "depth" or a world around it. Instead the items are in some dead space.
That explains what you said about abstract art that has random lines and shapes. They too lack depth or a world, isolated.
“Not abstract enough” has really got me thinking and I don’t know if I understand it.
Is it that post modern thought said “beauty and narrative are arbitrary, look! anything can be anything.” And then proceeded to try to show how anything can be anything, which broke our dream for more and higher?
Is what you’re saying that the drive for higher beauty in the absolute expression is Good and also technically more “abstract?”