I feel confused about the definition of abstract art lately. It is assumed that abstract art is characterized by showing elements in a completely different way, either through lines, geometric figures or spots, but never in a realistic way. Although in this style the distorted elements may be allowed to bear a certain similarity with the real ones, what exceeds certain limits should never be considered abstract. There are other names for art that, even showing what it really is (a flower is a flower, a bird is a bird, etc.) does not belong to the realistic style.
It is true that sometimes it is difficult to classify a style, however we should stick to certain parameters. For example: the blurred image of a flower is not an abstract, but it is a stain that represents a flower. Perhaps it is because abstract art is considered more contemporary than others, but in recent times many describe what is not abstract.
It is assumed that abstract art is based on simplicity, even in a large composition, it should be difficult to identify the meaning of each element itself. It is supposed to leave a certain interpretation released to the imagination and to what the very composition of forms and colors represent, it is like an own and hidden language of the soul that can not be assimilated to what we see with our eyes in reality and, for this reason, each artist develops a different language that is far from the rest of styles.
When we make an abstract work we move away from the traditional point of view, for which we need an important dose of internal freedom that helps us to disassociate ourselves from the old school. We must be able to reflect what we see, feel or think without using traditional visual tools. It can take years to achieve an abstract style that identifies us, it is an interior and creative path totally different from traditional art, it is a path full of stones, since any appreciation of what we do will be highly subjective. To do this, we must learn to know the strength of a line or a color, what it means for us, without taking into account what the rest of humanity considers correct or not in painting. Unlike traditional art, no one can take us by the hand to learn or tell us that that eye or that flower is not well made. Only we know what and how we want to show it.
I must admit that sometimes I also commit the imprudence of describing some of my works as abstract when, deep down, I know perfectly well that they are not really. But, what we can't do is to qualify as abstract what is not at all, for example:
This is abstract, shapes and colors and really don't have to do with reality:
This is figurative abstract, there are elements that resemble to much the human body:
This, even when I call it abstract, I honestly do not consider it that way, it could almost be a naive minimalist style:
And this is not abstract at all, it does not matter if the lines are not entirely correct, or if the image is blurred, or if it does not have many details, or the reason we want to invent, can be anything other than abstract:
My friends, if you want to paint abstract works the most important thing is to let yourself go, forget everything you've learned and find that sublime connection between lines, spots, colors and your heart.