Anti-Form

To be anti-form is to take away any trace of the artist’s hand. He exalts an artist like Pollock for being able to just let gravity have its way with the materials and produce art. The processes that involve not a brush but a can instead, is what allows the artist to eliminate form. I am unclear why getting rid of form is so important to him but I think it is a nice alternative. Because without such great works by artist’s that rely so heavily on form like works from the renaissance or even impressionists like Monet, art wouldn’t be what it is today.
He mentions, “ the focus on matter and gravity as means results in forms which were not projected in advance.” Although this could result in work that is pleasing to the eye, as exemplified in Pollock’s case, I find a problem with that kind of work. What is your intention for the piece then? I believe that you should have something you are trying to express if you are going to create a piece of work. Even if the work is abstract and you can’t make out forms, you should still be able to communicate something through your color palette, the mood, the tone of the piece. Maybe I am interpreting the meaning of this statement the wrong way. If it is the forms that take shape that are random but the purpose is still there, then I cannot refute this process.