Just because some abstract art strays away from strict visual references does not mean that it does not represent something. I have fallen victim to this mindset before, though. I’ve seen art, such as [Piet Mondrian’s ‘Composition A’](https://www.wikiart.org/en/piet-mondrian/composition-a-1923) or [Robert Delaunay’s ‘Le Premier Disque’](https://www.paintingmania.com/le-premier-disque-56_29019.html) and thought “Anyone could make this, so why is it famous art?” I think it boils down to the fact that just because someone else could make something, *they didn’t*. There was an intention by the artists that in itself can be considered art. Sometimes it’s less about the end product and more about the process of creating something that draws a reaction from the viewer, whether it be positive, negative, or perhaps completely neutral. To claim that something is not art at all is a strong stance, and to label something “not art” that was created using a distinct artistic process, whatever that may be, seems to discredit the range of reactions, emotions, and discussions that can come from abstract art.

Literally anything we want to call art, is art. Period. That being said, as far as I'm concerned, this is a lot like the argument over whether something is a sport. You can stomp around all you want and demand we recognize Chess as a sport, but you can't just sit there and pretend like you have no idea what we mean when we say that Chess is obviously not a sport. Art necessarily requires a certain level of time commitment. One can find beauty in a puddle of urine, and that puddle of urine could perhaps only be made by that specific person at that specific height with that specific diet and those specific kidneys. That doesn't make it art and that definitely doesn't mean we should care about it.

Abstract art arguably represents much more than conventional forms of art. It represents not only one meaning but multiple ones that are endlessly varied. One will look at a painting and see the sea, another person will see a face and so on. Having worked in a museum that displays abstract art and lyrical abstraction, many ask, 'What is the purpose of these paintings? It doesn't mean anything'. We have become so obsessed with addressing the world through a utilitarian lens, always looking for a purpose, a sense, an answer. The beauty and the worth of abstract art resides within its meaningful purposelessness or as termed by Theophile Gautier, 'l'Art pour l'art', 'Art for art's sake'. Art does not need to be explained. Art in itself does not have a precise sense or utility but it is an aesthetic and almost intangible experience. It is meant to be admired, to impact the viewer and the mind. Why are people so eager to find this precise purpose within the products of artists? These artists experiment and test the viewer's expectations and maintain the viewer's attention by not offering an answer to what they are precisely representing. Abstract art is therefore subversive, represents a variety of meanings and aesthetic experiences. It also shows how depicting 'nothing' is actually much more representative and impactful than a clear picture.

Stop making political statements and philosophical questions art. "Art" requires a demonstration of technique and expression of beauty and emotion. We create art to convey our feeling and to share beauty.

I don't know how to adequately argue my point here without being overly emotive. Art is subjective to the individual and if someone wants to find beauty in a solid red canvas then power to them. However there needs to be a collective standard if artistic media is to mean anything and if someone gets paid millions for sticking the afore mentioned solid red canvas on a museum wall then the artist community on the whole has gone doolally.