Frances to Boris and others... Some good instances of abstraction actually entail a degree of iconic similarity. When a small microscopic section of an object or work is cropped and isolated and then telescopically enlarged, as was superbly done with the photographed marks of paintings in a recent post, then the exciting result can be held solely alone as a final abstract artifact in its own right. The degree of iconicity in such a case however can be very vague, so that the original distant source has little similarity or familiarity to the new picture. Any pure abstract artwork made from scratch by an artist would of course not be directly or microscopically derived as a section from another distant source, but the artwork would nonetheless entail a degree of iconicity, because its form would in the least be similar to some quality of feeling. In any event, it is likely that what makes any good abstraction great is at least partly found in its "beautiful" formal quality, yet it is agreed that what makes it mainly nice or good or great or art is not by way of its form alone, but is by way of something else other than its form. My standing guess is that the something else other than form alone will be found in the "power" the form bears or has that enables it to reflect worthy aesthetic values of a natural and cultural kind, and to evoke intense aesthetic experiences of an emotional or practical or intellectual kind, that are furthermore worthwhile both individually and communally.
You wrote... To me the strongest and unique point in Worringer's thesis that it lays with its account of abstraction in art. In my thesis level of pure abstraction has nothing to do with the formalist element, but a degree of artistic greatness.
