“I do not think it is necessary to paint trees, as people on their way to the exhibition can see better ones in reality” (75) 1, words spoken by a true pioneer of abstract art, Frantisek Kupka. “I do paint but I paint only the conception, the synthesis: if you like, the chords” (75) 2, and here the idea that lets other people understand this abstract artist’s work. It is unfortunate, that many people today cannot enjoy abstract art, because they feel that they cannot understand it. To explore this problem the term ‘abstract art’ must be defined and differentiated from the type of art most people are able to connect to; realism. Realism is art, which represents real, easily recognizable objects. Abstract art is art, which represents real objects in an abstracted fashion. Sometimes the abstracted objects are recognizable, and sometimes they are not, but they are never represented completely realistically. Realism is easy to understand, because objects are represented the way people expect to see them. To understand abstract art, however, one must become a little more educated about the abstracted image. Some artists deliberately change (or abstract) their subject’s natural appearance in an effort to communicate something they can’t convey through realistic treatment, such as showing movement, for instance. Frank Kupka’s abstract art is a good example for explaining abstract art. This is, because he strives to find scientific and theoretical basis for his work, and his thought processes that concluded in his paintings Amorpha: Fugue in two Colours and Piano Keys: The Lake are the perfect examples to show this.
For credibility, it is important to realize that Kupka was an academically trained artist, whose resume include the School of Arts and Crafts at Jaromer, the Prague Academy of Fine Arts, and the Akademie der Bildenden Kuenste in Vienna, but also to recognize that he was very interested in studying questions of color