Foreword

The dialectic between abstraction and figuration has always existed in art history. It logically stems from the inherent negativity within any positive act of figuration: to posit something is to subtract what it isn’t. One only has to visualise a sculptor chipping away at a marble block to grasp that we have to negate part of what is given to us — the indeterminate matter from which form can emerge — to determine anything. To move towards “figuration” is hence to perceive indetermination in the light of determination. But to truly see one is to see the other, its opposite. Which is why determination can also be seen through the lens of indetermination. Suddenly, the figure itself is revealed to be abstract and every “figurative” element within the work only has value in relation to the other parts of the work. The totality appears, and it is neither abstract nor figurative; or you could say it is both. 

As a consequence, artists were always drawn to “abstract” away, keeping only the essential features — those that best express the content at hand, serving the artwork as a whole. Velázquez, for instance, would simply strip away all unnecessary visual information in his portraits, his incredible powers of synthesis making it seem as though he captured the very soul of his subjects: through the veil of abstraction, they are now staring back at us.

However, abstraction did reach unprecedented heights in modern art. The latter brought forth the greatest deconstruction of form ever seen and, with it, radical freedom. A whole new repertoire of techniques and gestures was offered to us, and the essence of art was once and for all revealed to lie well beyond naturalistic endeavours. This led some to believe the history of “figurative” aesthetics was over. Many artists fled representation itself, completely evacuating the complexity of form — and thus content — from their work. Some thought complete abstraction could better express a form of absolute. Others subconsciously expressed their nihilistic beliefs by negating the picture-plane itself, or indulging heavily into pattern-making. A few doubled down on hyper-realism. In many instances, it was based upon a misconception: thinking that figuration and abstraction are not the same. Truth be told, content can only be expressed through form and every act of representation is abstract by nature. 

The temporary negation of representation was a necessary step forward to reveal presence within absence and vice versa. But if we are to continue elevating the art, we need to finally learn from the ideas of Kant and Hegel. All aesthetic revelation plays on the leap between the internal concept of what is represented and the mystery of its outward appearance. Accordance between these two poles — between finite elements and the infinite relation that holds them together — generates beauty. When making a powerful image, form and content no longer stand apart. Each only comes into being by becoming the other; both exist solely by dissolving into a unity that can no longer be named, only seen and felt. Emotion is discovered through shape, and shape through emotion. A quiet miracle occurs: subjectivity and objectivity are reunited in the artwork.

The avant-gardes did not kill painting: they made it self-aware. Perhaps not much else needs to be said; images speak for themselves.