In defense of Abstract Art
It's possible to believe that people around the world love, hate, misunderstand, and criticize abstract art. More than likely the people who've come to hate and criticize probably have no art history knowledge or appreciation whatsoever. However, art critics and serious art collectors debate the meaning and value of an abstract painting. Since this is such a hotbed issue, we should first get an idea of what exactly is abstract art.
Abstract art is essentially any work of art that is not a realistic or accurate depiction or representation of an actual subject or object. Furthermore, if you're looking at a piece of abstract art, you're not supposed to see anything familiar, nothing recognizable or able to communicate. Yet, simply because you can't discern what the subject is doesn't indicate the piece lacks any monetary or cultural value, importance, or convey a message.
Nevertheless, abstract art has seen a controversial art style since it appeared in the first half of the 20th century by the likes of Russian painter Wassily (Vasily) Kandinsky and has remained that way over time. What makes it such is that it breaks free of the traditional principles of Classical Realism, the leading approach taught in all the European art academies. During the era, all art had to conform to their rule that stated that an artist's first duty was to paint a recognizable scene or object and represent or copy what is real on the outside. However, Impressionism and Art Nouveau showed the artists that they didn't have to conform to such rules and express themselves in new ways.