Why Abstract Art Doesn’t Suck: A Response to the Critics

Feature image: Jackson Pollock, No.5, 1948 via jackson-pollock.org

Our recent Instagram reels of Jackson Pollock, Karel Appel, and Joan Mitchell have received hundreds of thousands of views, and the comments flood in: "This isn’t art." "A child could do this." "This is just a mess." The reaction is nothing new—abstract art has been met with skepticism since its inception. But beneath the surface-level criticism lies a deeper misunderstanding of what art is and why abstraction matters.

Art is not defined by realism or technical skill alone. If that were the case, photography would have replaced painting long ago. Art is about communication, innovation, and emotional impact. The definition of art has evolved throughout history, from the Renaissance masters to the avant-garde rebels of the 20th century. Abstract art challenges traditional notions of representation and invites viewers to engage with color, form, and movement in ways that extend beyond recognizable imagery.

One of the most common critiques is that abstract paintings could be done by a child; this comment is left on countless posts we release praising Mark Rothko. While it’s true that a child can splash paint on a canvas, the comparison ignores the intention, technique, and years of study behind artists like Pollock and Mitchell. Abstract painters refine their visual language, understanding how composition, color theory, and texture create meaning. The spontaneity in their work is deliberate, not accidental.

Artists like Joan Mitchell, Willem de Kooning, and Karel Appel spent years developing their style. The freedom seen in their work isn’t the result of carelessness but of deep knowledge of materials and movement. Abstract Expressionists, for example, sought to capture raw emotion—something that can’t be neatly outlined like a still life or a portrait. Just because a painting isn’t photorealistic doesn’t mean it lacks complexity.

Abstract art is often dismissed because it doesn’t depict something immediately recognizable. However, that is precisely what makes it powerful. By removing the confines of representation, abstract artists allow color, shape, and gesture to speak directly to the viewer’s emotions. Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings are not about objects; they are about energy, rhythm, and movement. Joan Mitchell’s layered brushstrokes convey feelings of nostalgia, turbulence, and joy.

Critics often argue that abstract art is overpriced and valued simply because of an artist’s name. While the art market has its flaws, this argument disregards the history and influence of abstract movements. The same could be said about any genre—Renaissance paintings, Impressionist works, or contemporary installations. The value of art isn’t just about price; it’s about the impact it has on culture, history, and the evolution of creative thought.

A common claim is that the high prices of abstract art make it a tool for money laundering. While it’s true that art can be used in financial transactions due to its subjective value and ease of transport, this is not unique to abstract art—it applies to all high-value art forms, including Old Masters and modernist works. The notion that abstract art exists solely as a financial loophole ignores its cultural and historical significance. Works by artists like Pollock and Mitchell achieved critical recognition long before the art market exploded. The high value of these works is a result of their influence, not just market manipulation. The fact that some people exploit the art world for financial gain does not diminish the legitimacy of abstract art as a whole.

Karel Appel, one of the founders of the CoBrA movement, pushed the boundaries of abstract expressionism with his raw, untamed style. His thickly applied paint, vibrant colors, and almost childlike figures embody a sense of freedom and rebellion. Appel’s art was about breaking conventions and embracing spontaneity. His work was often criticized as chaotic and unrefined, but this was precisely his intention—to capture a primal, instinctive form of creativity. To dismiss his art as meaningless is to ignore the deep emotional impact that his works evoke.

Perhaps no artist has been as polarizing as Jackson Pollock. His drip paintings, created through his unique action painting technique, have been mocked as random splashes of paint. However, scientific analysis has shown that Pollock’s work exhibits fractal patterns—complex mathematical structures that appear in nature. This suggests that his method, far from being random, had an inherent structure that the human eye subconsciously recognizes as harmonious. Pollock revolutionized the act of painting itself, turning the canvas into an arena of movement and gesture.

Joan Mitchell’s work is often misunderstood because of its abstract and deeply personal nature. She painted with intense emotion, translating memories and landscapes into layered compositions of color and gesture. Unlike Pollock, who emphasized movement, Mitchell was influenced by poetry, music, and the natural world. Her paintings require patience and engagement, as they reveal themselves over time. Dismissing her art as random scribbles ignores the profound emotional and technical depth she brought to each canvas.

Many people reject abstract art because they don’t understand the artist’s intent. Without context, a Pollock painting might look like random splatters, and a de Kooning piece might seem like chaos. But understanding the historical context—how these artists responded to war, societal shifts, and personal struggles—adds depth to their work. Abstract art is often rooted in deep philosophy, whether it’s Mark Rothko’s meditations on human existence or Helen Frankenthaler’s exploration of color and space.

Instead of asking, "What is this supposed to be?" try asking, "What does this make me feel?" Abstract art doesn’t demand a single interpretation; it invites an experience. Look at how colors interact, how brushstrokes move, and how the composition makes you feel. The more time spent with an abstract work, the more it reveals.

Abstract art isn’t meant to be comfortable or easily digestible. It’s meant to challenge, provoke, and expand our understanding of visual language. Just because something doesn’t fit traditional definitions doesn’t mean it lacks value. The next time someone comments, "This sucks," on a painting by Pollock, Appel, or Mitchell, it’s worth asking: does it really suck, or is it simply asking us to see the world differently?

©ArtRKL™️ LLC 2021-2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ArtRKL™️ and its underscore design indicate trademarks of ArtRKL™️ LLC and its subsidiaries.