And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception.

Result #1

And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. An artist such as Klee would be an insomniac, unable to recognize and to make sense of the world. Klee was a pioneer in developing the art of the abstract mind. But we cannot compare the intellect to what we perceive in abstract art. A good, scientifically true theory of perception is one that is unique and not part of any accepted form of perception. Theory is a myth, like all myths, and it is often one that is more convenient than the truth. The theory that Einstein was making an observation that quantum physics can make true is more convenient than the theory that makes quantum physics true.An artist such as Klee would be an insomniac, unable to recognize and to make sense of the world. Klee was a pioneer in developing the art of the abstract mind. But we cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. A good, scientifically true theory of perception is one that is unique and not part of any accepted form of perception. Theory is a myth, like all myths, and it is often one that is more convenient than the truth. The theory that Einstein was making an observation that quantum physics can make true is more convenient than the theory that makes quantum physics true. A good, scientifically true theory of perception is one that is unique and not part of any accepted form of perception. Theory is a myth, like all myths, and it is often one that is more convenient than the truth. The theory that Einstein was making an observation that quantum physics can make true is more convenient than the theory that makes quantum physics true. A good, scientifically true theory of perception is one that is unique and not part of any accepted form of perception. Theory is a myth, like all myths, and it is often one that is more convenient than the truth. The theory that Einstein was making an observation that quantum physics can make true is more convenient than the theory that makes quantum physics true.

Result #2

And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. Abstract art has an invisible physical body.It is one thing to make an abstract painting, another thing to make an abstract painting with an illusionistic body. As much as the body appears in abstract paintings, abstract paintings can also be viewed through the body. Abstract paintings are more natural than natural, and the body always appears in abstract paintings. Sometimes we take the body as a sign of the invisible, as if its presence were somehow a sign of the invisible. However, Abstract art has a physical body; the body is seen, no matter what it looks like or how it is constructed. It is not the abstract shape that is made invisible, but the shape of the body. The body is a sign of the invisible. Abstract painting has a physical body. The body is a sign of the body. Abstract painting is more natural than natural. When the body appears as an abstract shape, it is an abstract shape. In other words, when the body is an abstract shape, as in an abstract painting, the body also appears abstract.When the body appears as an abstract shape, it is an abstract shape, and there is a discrepancy between the body and the abstract shape. The body is an abstraction, and a body can appear abstract. But when the body appears as an abstract shape, the body also appears abstract. When the body appears as an abstract shape, the body also appears abstract. This is the problem with the body as an abstract shape: it is not just an abstract shape, it is an abstract shape with an abstract body. So, to say the body is a shape that is an abstraction in its own right, is to say that the body is an abstract shape that is an abstraction in its own right. The body can be an abstraction; the abstract shape can be an abstraction. Both are abstract shapes with an abstract body. This is a form of the body as an abstract shape.

Result #3

And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. Even in the realm of the unconscious, we can recognize something. The thing in the unconscious is abstract, it is not a property of our mind.It is in this spirit that Daniel Kahneman, in his book The Decision Making Process (1998) quotes Georges Bataille in the preface to his influential book on the subject. In a chapter called Seven Points of Insight, Bataille notes that seeing is a process of observing. It is not seen, but it is observed. It is not seen, but it is experienced. This is what makes seeing interesting: observing the process of seeing is part of the experience of seeing. The process of seeing is part of the process of cognition. Thus, the process of seeing can be a cognition of the visible world, of the sensory world, or of an interior world, of the material world. It is this which makes the experience of seeing interesting.There is a line of thought at the back of this book, suggested by the title, that reminds me of a letter I received from a young man who took a keen interest in the process of seeing, the way it affects his perception. The young man has a large visual field, no medium, just like ours, and yet he can discern the difference between the two, the difference between the inner and outer worlds. One night, the young man looked at a house with a bright light shining on it. This house is right next door to his own apartment; the bright light covered the whole room. The house is the center of his vision. The house is the canvas on which he paints his vision. He looks at this house, but does not know it. The house is the canvas on which he paints his vision. He looks at this house, but does not know it. . . . It is a small, intimate view of the inner world. The inner world is the real world. The inner world is real.

Result #4

And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. Hence, the definition in the dictionary of synonyms is unreliable and imprecise.The similar synonym in the dictionary is related to the synonyms for abstraction in Meriam-Webster, because in abstraction there is nothing to be abstracted. Even if there is an abstraction of a sign, its symbol, the sign is not to be abstracted. Similarly, the synonym for material is the synonym for material. Abstract art is, as a matter of fact, a world of solid and dead matter, not of mass and massless mass. Thus, by implication, abstract art is a material world. In fact, abstract art is the material world. In other words, the two are almost like one another, a subjection of a body and of matter. The body and its signs, the sign and the body, are inseparable. The body is also a sign of and product of the sign, and material sign and signified sign. If the body and the sign are the same, then the sign in abstract art is the sign of the body and the sign of the body. In this way, abstract art is like a body of dead matter—not a body but the sign of the body. I dont think there is anything abstract about abstract art, but there is nothing abstract about the dead matter of abstract art. Hence, the body and sign also come together in abstract art.In this sense, abstract art, like body and sign, are one. Abstract art is a sign of the body and the sign of the body. The body and sign are the same in abstract art, and so the body and sign both are signified by abstract sign. But the body and sign are not identical in abstraction. Thus, abstract sign is not identical with the body and sign. In contrast to the body and sign, abstract sign is not identical with the sign and body. The body and sign, body and sign, are the same in abstraction.

Result #5

And many ordinary viewers who want to see only art they can put on their living room walls experience alienation, even nausea, if they find themselves in the abstract section of a museum. I like the synonym "incorporeal," which Meriam-Webster defines as 'having no material body or form." Abstract art often has no material body or form. If it does have a corporeal form, that form is often unrecognizable. If recognizable, it is distorted to a lesser or greater degree. We cannot compare what we see in abstract art to anything in our common sense perception. Painting, painting, it is all made from the same ingredients. In the end, Meriam-Webster concludes, painting is less than beautiful and less than real, and in the end it is beautiful and real. Léger, Meriweather, and the rest of the postwar generation were looking for something that they could have been looking for at the beginning. They came up with something that was beautiful and real, but in the end, it was ugly and real.The same trouble was found in the paintings of Joseph Beuys, who did not think much of the physical qualities of his materials, and now says he did not know what the points of contact between form and content was. He had never seen the concept of the sublime before he painted them. . . . The idea that form must be sublime to be meaningful was really a naïve one. . . . . His paintings are still lifes and still lifes are pictures of form; they dont represent form but form and content must be meaningful. It is at this point in the history of modern art that the real esthetic world and the history of modern art become the same thing.The issues raised by the painting of Donald Judd are the same as those raised by the abstract paintings of Le Corbusier and Schindler. If the abstract works were to be understood as an application of the new abstract ideas to painting, then the paintings would have to be interpreted as abstract form. What is interesting about them is their compositional qualities: the quality of the lacquer and the softness of the paint, for example. They are not simply accidental effects, and that makes sense. We do not feel the qualities of the lacquer or paint we are painting, just the qualities that have been added to the surface and arranged on the surface.