JenniferPinto

Abstract art arguably represents much more than conventional forms of art. It represents not only one meaning but multiple ones that are endlessly varied. One will look at a painting and see the sea, another person will see a face and so on. Having worked in a museum that displays abstract art and lyrical abstraction, many ask, 'What is the purpose of these paintings? It doesn't mean anything'. We have become so obsessed with addressing the world through a utilitarian lens, always looking for a purpose, a sense, an answer. The beauty and the worth of abstract art resides within its meaningful purposelessness or as termed by Theophile Gautier, 'l'Art pour l'art', 'Art for art's sake'. Art does not need to be explained. Art in itself does not have a precise sense or utility but it is an aesthetic and almost intangible experience. It is meant to be admired, to impact the viewer and the mind. Why are people so eager to find this precise purpose within the products of artists? These artists experiment and test the viewer's expectations and maintain the viewer's attention by not offering an answer to what they are precisely representing. Abstract art is therefore subversive, represents a variety of meanings and aesthetic experiences. It also shows how depicting 'nothing' is actually much more representative and impactful than a clear picture.

Why should you always be loyal to your family if it isn't reciprocated? Why continuously suffer from unrequited loyalty? This is quite an idealistic and generalising claim and disregards how varied the structure of 'family' is today. For many, those closest and most present in their lives are their friends and others that aren't blood relatives but that have become a part of a different type of family structure. One shouldn't always have to be loyal to their family if they have been repeatedly wronged, if it harms them and makes them unhappy. Blood shouldn't forever tie you to this fate if the family dynamic is harmful and not adapted to being loyal to this extent.

Literary works survive time and space only if they are reread and discussed through a modern lens. The fascinating changes in time, space and societies add layers of significance, meaning and artistry to the literary work. The latter must continue to be reread and reflected upon to convey the immutable, transcendent qualities of the work and of mankind itself. This is also valid for art. The painting of Guernica, for example, exemplifies this with Ron English’s 2011 Grade School Guernica. Guernica has been reappropriated, readapted and reused to speak of modern contexts and issues like that existing between and within the territories of Palestine and Israel. By linking Pablo Picasso's mythical icons with new ones, English renders a dramatic impact upon the spectator. The artwork has been able to defy and explore the boundaries of time, geographical spaces and happenings which further enriches its socio-historical quality. On the other hand, one should not read or criticise in a way that changes the work’s intentions or purport by labelling it as something that it is not. One cannot claim that a classic literary work is feminist if that is not what it was at the time. It may have some of today’s feminist traits but this does not mean the work was feminist at the time or desired to be marked as such. We must refrain from categorising literary pieces in this manner. It is therefore essential to consider all aspects of the work. Criticising a literary work through a contemporary standpoint is vital to literature and literary genres as their essence resides within their constantly shifting nature. Hence, one must read and criticise through a modern lens while also remaining faithful to the work's intended meaning and cultural context to not make the work seem to be at the core, something that it is not.