by Joelle Steele

I’m pretty opinionated, ergo, I blog. When it comes to art, I think that in many ways the art world is changing, being more open to artists of all kinds. But one thing that still irks me is why-oh-why a piece of “abstract” art has to have an agreed-upon meaning? Why does art need to have meaning at all? If I paint a picture of my cat, do I have to convey anything other than the fact that it’s a picture of a cat who I obviously liked enough to paint?

I have never been able to get behind the philosophy that abstract art should have a meaning or a message. In my mind, if I want to send a message, the written word is always going to be the most effective way for me to do it. Words are far less ambiguous than are the vagaries of abstract images. After all, just because an artist tries to send a message through his or her art does not mean it will be received in the way it is intended. A painting that symbolizes an artist’s radical political agenda may be seen by a viewer as something other than a social statement and may instead be interpreted for the personal emotional chord that it strikes in that viewer.

Saying what your art “means” doesn’t guarantee that it will ever be a reminder of that message to the buyer who hangs it over the sofa in his den because it matches the room’s décor. My abstracts are never reflective of some inner struggle and they do not harbor any esoteric meaning, unless the viewer wishes to attribute some personal meaning of their own to my work. And they are always welcomed to do so. I’m not in love with my art, so once it’s out of my hands, the buyer is free to think about it in any way they please. And that is what I think is the true meaning of art: whatever it means to the person who views it.