i'm sorry. i'm a little lost. i am not following your arguement.
and can someone define 'abstract'? (i'm not speaking from ignorance of the term, but from it's relativity. it's so easily and quickly used in the public, that what is traditionally abstract, is abstract, a long with every other piece of artwork that someone doesn't understand the principles behind.)
"They say artists should document the historic moment, but what is there to document."
Was the original poster refering to the mass media that bombards everyone constantly, from ads, to misleading news reports, where every walking teeny bopper is a bilboard for the most recent fad? If this is the case, then I agree with her/him. What's the point of documenting history, when it's cluttered with half-truths, oppressing corporations, where the only thing that a newspaper or news reporter wishes to write/state is about the most recent slaying, who shot who, what bomb blew up where, a scandal, a rape, a drop in the economy, and whatever atrocity plagues the world at the moment.
Honestly, between flashy bilboards, and mass produced prints of a dead artist or local artist appearing on posters and coffee mugs, I too something just want to take a break from drawing what I see (another relative word) and just smear color around, 'contributing to a world of silence, contemplative,..'.
Perhaps the poster isn't refering to a 'world' as in contributing to 'society', but to some other world? Without knowing the entire context of the post, there isn't much to follow with.
What is 'a certain type of hippy-shit abstract art'?