In the most general sense, it means art which is non-representational. It doesn't depict actual scenes or subjects but instead is pure expression through color, shape, texture, etc. Jackson Pollack is an example of a well known abstract artist:

http://artmiss.co/wp-content/uploads...ic-15p6n9d.jpg

Mark Rothko is another:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ark_Rothko.jpg

Thanks! Its good to know I always thought it included extremely distorted depictions of things but if its not representational those wouldn't be considered abstract would they.

On a side note. How do art critics determine whats good abstract art and whats bad abstract art. Like how do particular pieces of abstract art become famous or not. I always was so confused by that considering the level of seeming randomness behind a lot of stuff like this.

Exactly. That's why Picasso's famous cubist pieces are not abstract. They are extremely stylized and non-realistic but nevertheless they do still depict people, things and places.

The same way as representational art: composition, color, texture, emotion, etc. A lot of abstract art is strongly compositional and not really random at all, though I can see why it might seem that way at first glance.

Abstraction is best defined for me as similar to generalisation in many ways - it's the act of taking something and removing specifics, generalising it to the point that it isn't really "about" something, but is more likely to represent a concept of a feeling than any specific image.

One of my favourite artists would probably be considered Abstract: Kandinsky is more known for his use of Colour than anything. He had colour/tone Synaesthesia, which for me adds another dimension to his paintings. Simply, though, I just adore the colours he uses:

http://i.imgur.com/J2Atq.jpg


Regarding the initial topic, I would imagine that it has been extensively argued that technical ability isn't everything. It certainly isn't for me. Music is much more about the soul of the piece than the sheer technical skill of the musicians. While listening to technically skilled musicians can be fantastic, unless the music has that all important depth of soul, it will never truly grip me. Similarly bad playing is just annoying, but something simple but thoughtful and emotionally strong can hit you much harder than the fastest guitar shredding in the world.

Ive always been a little fascinated with the collation between colour and music.

There have been repeated attempts to find a rational basis for linking colour with music. Attempts have been made to link the spectrum of light with the spectrum of sound, as one example.

Well if you consider both spectra have defined end points, as it were, it wouldn't be too difficult. You would need a number of willing synaesthetic guinea pigs (in order to have a decent sample space), but once you had defined endpoints it should be possible to construct a scale... That said, I haven't looked into it at all, and it could be totally random :P

Linking the spectrum of sound to the spectrum of light, might be a little to far off topic (I have read articles where theorized formulas of colour and musical structures supposedly do coincide with each other).

Sound could refer to anything you hear: talking, whispering, noise from the Air Conditioner, etc.

Sound alone does not imply music or organized sound, music is a meaningful assembly of sound.

Instead, sound is to paint like music is to artwork.

I don't think technical ability is that important at all. Creativity and songwriting skills are alot more important. Of course technical ability gives you a wider range to work in but if you don't know how to make interesting songs all the guitar wankery in the world can't save you.

This guy can't play guitar for **** but he sure makes interesting music (his piano playing isn't that bad to be honest)

^^yeah agreed on DJ

I always freaking loved the song walking the cow by that guy. Pretty interesting guy. Not actually too hard to relate to in many ways as well