Congruent with itself: Turner art prize 2006

[mancroft]

?Tomma Abts?s paintings are the result of a rigorous working method that pitches the rational against the intuitive. As the internal logic of each composition unfolds forms are defined, buried and rediscovered until the painting becomes ?congruent with itself?.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2486912,00.html

Can anyone explain what this bullshit means because I'm buggered if I can understand it?

[PonderBee]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42153000/jpg/_42153496_gall_titchnerergo_getty.jpg

[e-Centric]

Quote:
?Tomma Abts?s paintings are the result of a rigorous working method that pitches the rational against the intuitive. As the internal logic of each composition unfolds forms are defined, buried and rediscovered until the painting becomes ?congruent with itself?.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2486912,00.html



Can anyone explain what this bullshit means because I'm buggered if I can understand it?

Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with the artist's works. That said:
The quoted passage appears to indicate that the paintings were constructed in a way that one's logic will assign meaning to the artwork in one way while intuition will assign meaning in a different way, causing a conflict when searching for the *true* meaning (that is, what each individual perceives to be true).

How I read the first quote is that intuition provides information that will enable you to form (or recognize) a logical framework in which to understand what the artist was attempting to convey. Logic and intuition become congruent, and thus are reconciled, one with the other. They fit together rather than being at odds, with the resulting view of the artwork arising from two important processes.

In short, logic and intuition can be integrated in such a way as to increase our understanding, without regard to the specific situation in which they are applied.

[zhang_bob]

Can anyone explain what this bullshit means because I'm buggered if I can understand it?That what I want to know.

[Ferrus]

It seems to suggest that each composition is based off an internal logic that is then intuitively united in congruence.

Or something.

[Prothero]

I thought it was a typical explanation given to the attempts of those self proclaimed artists who just happen to be very skilled at self promotion; a form of confusing words to hide the truth of the less than artistic effort.
It's a bit like the artist(?) at the UofMn who, having decided she is no longer inspired to paint (thankfully) she has turned her attention to baking dog bisquits, and she has managed to surround herself with those unwilling to say "WTF, these are doggie treats."

Pretenders took over the art world years ago. What's frightenting is that they are now applying themselves to all forms of art, and in some instances, science (PBS's Nova is full of experts with faulty premises.)

Yet I am of an older school that believes art should require skill and imagination, so maybe someone else will be able to explain:

1> Why it is considered art.

2> How the explanation of that art applies to the image.