""To complain that man measures God by his own experience is a waste of time; man measures everything by his own experience; he has no other yardstick." -Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker.
I must judge and compare everything according to myself and to my own limited knowledge for I have never been outside of this bubble, I've never been anything other than myself; therefore, I am limited.
My friend Brian is, I feel, nervous about the term "postmodern", especially in its linkage to art. This is not uncommon, but for now I want to scrap the term and speak to abstraction in art without the interference of postmodernity. Abstraction is, in art history, taught as beginning in the late 1800's/early 1900's with the Post-Impressionists and Picasso and is defined as a visual breakage from naturalism and traditional representationalism.
As described in an essay by Arnold J. Toynbee, what might be termed as a naturalist painting is not, in fact, natural at all! One does not look at the countryside and see it as Corot or Millet have painted it, and yet this form is excepted for the image presents how we know the country to look. What the image does not present is what "the primitive knows that they really are."
Are not our thoughts of God, in some sense, abstracted? They, our thoughts, are restricted to what the human mind can imagine and in how it relates through experience and analogy...so are we not only able to glean pieces of the truth of the nature of God, filtered though our finite understanding? And is not a filtered version of the truth a rough definition of abstraction?
Now, there are artists who paint abstractly in order to escape representationalism in every sense of the term. These artists are painting a painting, not a thought or an idea, not an object or a scene, just a painting.
These are my detached ramblings for now...I haven't the power to connect or make sense of them at the moment.