Was re re reading this post todo with categories and hierarchies with some ideas of abstractness thrown in 0 and it sudenly hit me that perhaps am being very vile and violent in my thoughts, or even their implications. Hence perhaps wrong.. Again.. This seems to be a fairly distinct possible sequence because I – or some others – can not ForcE a particular perception, abstract or otherwise, onto others. Well, if its forced – which can be – then something might seriously be mistaken, and or require some revisibility.
I can claim that a red-yellow brightonian Bee, one which buzzes in my mind only – i suspect – is an abstract. I can claim that till time folds and falls asleep, however because of the precise level of description, can people, plants, winds, meteorites and shopping lists can seriously be expected to take that mind bee as an abstract? As an element that is of and onto itself? I do not think so.. I think people can say look this is a pretty concrete kind of a creature, its a bee, it had red and yellow, its from or in brighton and only in your mind!
However, if that is used as a sort of Mind-Bee prop example, then it can be claimed an abstract. But then the question is of how this abstract comes about, being shared as how it is.. I think its a serious question because one can then argue that, for example, if it was shared as a MindBee creature, without the colour and place particulars, maybe it would be more of an abstract. Yet, one can argue that in fact, as such it is NOT an abstract but an Abstraction of the red-yellow brightonian Mind Bee.. Even more than that, it can be argued that the abstract is an illustration of the former..
For example, if we focus on Mondrian for a few lines, his vertical and horizontal lines – and am focusing on lines not colours – clearly stem from his idea that the universe is of two moving lines of the same type.
Now, his stuff appears very abstract. True. However, in terms of ideas, it can be argued that he illustrates a certain conception, a certain cosmology of the world (with De Stijl). More over, Mondrian’s move towards abstract stuff is clearly shown via the tree stuff he did, where the branches progressively being abstracted into lines.. In that sense, perhaps Mondrian’s stuff is an abstractive illustration?
Perhaps a way out of it is precisely the non-importance of the object, the project, the particular shape and material, the process even – but the practice?
Not too sure about that in the context of abstract..