Conscious Abstraction may be understood not merely as a language of art, but also as a methodological instrument for the exploration of cognitive structures. By virtue of its formal premises and conceptual orientation, it initiates a process in which both the artist and the viewer enter into an interactive dialogue with their own modes of awareness. In this respect, it should be conceived less as an image than as a cartography of mental processes—a mode of experience that simultaneously engages phenomenal consciousness (that which “appears” within the field of attention) and access consciousness (that which can be processed, analyzed, and articulated).
From the perspective of classical aesthetics, artistic experience is often governed by the immediacy of first impressions—whether aesthetic, emotional, or sensory. Phenomenal consciousness operates within this register, registering shapes, colors, compositions, and their immediate impact upon the perceiver. It is within this sphere that Conscious Abstraction also situates itself, offering an intense visual encounter. Yet, crucially, it does not confine itself to this dimension. On the contrary, it deliberately destabilizes perception by refusing straightforward identification or narrative coherence. Such a strategy compels the viewer to move beyond the immediacy of perception, thereby extending aesthetic experience into a more reflexive domain.
When examined through the lens of access consciousness, the full interpretive potential of Conscious Abstraction becomes apparent. The arrangement of elements—their relations, repetitions, and tensions—produces a structure that resists passive reception and demands active decoding. In this sense, reception becomes less a matter of sensation than of “reading” a language of abstract concepts. The viewer is required to activate memory, analysis, and comparison, thereby mobilizing the capacities associated with access consciousness. Ultimately, meaning does not reside in the work itself but emerges within the mental activity of the perceiver, through the interaction between the visible and that which is logically recognized as significance. One might compare this to a phenomenon of “mental divisionism,” whereby discrete perceptual fragments achieve coherence only within the integrative act of consciousness.
The singularity of Conscious Abstraction thus lies in its integration of these two models of awareness. On one hand, it delivers phenomenal impulses—raw perceptual stimuli. On the other, it organizes them in such a way that the viewer is compelled to logical reflection. The experience neither permits a retreat into pure emotion nor rests upon description alone. Rather, it requires constant oscillation between impression and concept. In so doing, it both imitates and reinforces the mechanisms of thought itself, transforming aesthetic reception into a cognitive process that develops over time and culminates in higher levels of intellectual reflection.
It may therefore be argued that Conscious Abstraction should not be seen merely as a new artistic tendency, but as an experiment performed upon cognition itself. By transcending both aesthetic effect and expressive gesture, it becomes a relational language mediating between sensation and concept. What, in other artistic forms, remains an unconscious mechanism of reception here assumes the character of a conscious, demanding, and meticulously constructed process. Conscious Abstraction is, in this sense, not simply a journey across the pictorial surface but also an exploration of the very structures of thought through which meaning is generated.
This reconceptualization also transforms the position of the viewer. The recipient of Conscious Abstraction is no longer a passive spectator, but an active participant in the production of meaning. The artwork does not “speak” autonomously; rather, significance is constituted only within the perceptual–intellectual encounter. In this transformation, the viewer becomes a reader of structures, a spectator turned co-creator of meaning. It is this dynamic that renders Conscious Abstraction not only a language of art but also a form of epistemic inquiry—an exploration of the world that dispenses with the necessity of figurative representation.
Placed in dialogue with the history of abstraction, this approach may be seen as a radical extension of earlier paradigms. Traditional abstract art often emphasized either spiritual resonance, as in the work of Kandinsky, or the expressive qualities of gesture and form. Conscious Abstraction moves decisively beyond both, insofar as it not only expresses but also conceptualizes abstract dogmas—entities that do not inhabit the world of things, but rather the domain of concepts. Accordingly, it requires from the viewer a capacity to transition from sensation to idea, from the presence of color to the recognition of relations. What is proposed, then, is a distinctive journey between dimensions of consciousness, one that is not narratively linear but structural and conceptual in character.