The most memorable radio voices often belong to unpleasant looking people. Either actors, journalists or general performers, these people have managed to detach their sound from their figure with admirable success. Their voice, abstract as music can be, has become their form; in fact, their sound has replaced their form. We can not call it hiding behind abstraction neither misleading the audience. Rather, less exposure or, said in other way, selective exposure saves the exposé; it puts him/her under controlled judgment.
Abstract painting is often a safeguard post from exposing exceedingly its creator. By the lack of a subject-theme, the judgment stays naturally to the artistic elements (which in this case are the theme) and their impact. On the other end, figurative painting, by carrying the image-traitor of its creator, is an easier victim to banality. More awareness is needed from the creator’s side for not letting the subject mute the voice of the image. Moreover, unless the subject is well worked out beyond its own image, figuration works as a ‘weight to the wings’ for the audience. It works like the news journal that prevents you from contemplating on your ceiling; thus, while useful for politics and propaganda, it holds flat our intellectual shake.
A painting with recognizable subject must go one step further; it must be able to survive as abstract while being figurative, to impose its sound over its shape. On that level, abstract and figurative works are both abstract. Our intellectual self links sounds with shapes/colors as equal elements. To my understanding, a painting can really be judged at exactly that point: there where shapes meet their sounds as equals.