« Se rappeler qu’un tableau, avant d’être un cheval de bataille, une femme nue ou une quelconque anecdote, est essentiellement une surface plane recouverte de couleurs en un certain ordre assemblées. » (Maurice Denis, 1890)

“Remember that a picture, before being a battle horse, a nude, an anecdote or whatnot, is essentially a flat surface covered with colors assembled in a certain order.” (Maurice Denis, 1890)

Denis essentially explained how the raw material of reality is turned into something we call art. There is nothing mysterious about it. Anything with colour can become colour for an artwork. Some artists use blood, urine, faeces, beverages to make their art. As long as it does the job then it can become an artwork.

“I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.” (Pablo Picasso, 1959) 

Picasso explained what the mind (his mind) was doing when it makes art. His paintings do not reflect the world he sees. Our experiential representations in our minds look more like straight photograph prints than his works. Put the model next to the painting, take a photograph of them both, and you will already understand that the artwork looks nothing like the model. If it did it would either be called something like realism, or would mean we live in the stranger world than we think.

“There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.” (Pablo Picasso, 1935)

Picasso continued to explain that to create abstract art means the removal of details which are part of the reality. In the end, whatever is left is abstract art. And the artwork is not the same thing as the content from which it was drawn from. Again, compare the artwork to the model and setting.

These three quotes can be considered ideas leading to the foundations of expression and abstract expressionism in Western art.

---

To me, words in language work exactly in the same way as Picasso’s art—you take out details from the definition. Whatever is left in is the definition of that word. This is abstraction in the form of definitional stipulation. Definitions are not floating out there. They are wholly created by the language users. Our agreement upon using one definition over another is how we use words to communicate.

If words had fixed and perfect definitions that everyone knew prior then, yes, that would mean definitions are indeed independent entities in the world. But the fact that we even argue over what the definition of a word is already shows that language is created, shared, and agreed upon as a way to do something functional called communication. Non-agreement means language is a negotiated system.