Especially in the more abstract styles, the artist's purpose or meaning can be quite obscure. Rather than saying "the artist was just playing around when they made that" or "this art is nothing more than mere decoration"—which would be very boring explanations—the critics and historians try to tie the new styles into the history of how art has previously been made, or perhaps they will find an obscure significance in some of the details of the art. This is a good thing, in my mind; dismissing the art with a boring explanation would be to miss out on some of the depth and richness that abstraction can provide.
Ah, yes! I agree that this is the way to have a good relationship with art. Even contemporary art that you feel is bizarre and unappealing can be salvaged by assuming is must be interesting in some way.
This has most certainly happened for probably all twentieth-century art, especially abstract art.
What do you mean?
Especially in the more abstract styles, the artist's purpose or meaning can be quite obscure. Rather than saying "the artist was just playing around when they made that" or "this art is nothing more than mere decoration"—which would be very boring explanations—the critics and historians try to tie the new styles into the history of how art has previously been made, or perhaps they will find an obscure significance in some of the details of the art. This is a good thing, in my mind; dismissing the art with a boring explanation would be to miss out on some of the depth and richness that abstraction can provide.
Ah, yes! I agree that this is the way to have a good relationship with art. Even contemporary art that you feel is bizarre and unappealing can be salvaged by assuming is must be interesting in some way.