i have a feeling i won't be able to say what i mean in a way that makes sense:
i was talking about art from the viewer's perspective, not from the artist's. OBVIOUSLY it means something to the artist (and hopefully to the viewer too). and i've been painting non-representationally for a while, so i'm not... i dont know. ha i'm not discrediting or taking the piss out of anything.
so yeah, i guess i kind of meant art historians, or even people who don't know anything about art at all. why do they stand in front of an abstract painting saying this looks like this, this line means this... or maybe more when people ask, "what is that?" Why does it have to be something? can't it just be what it is... a painting. with colors or shapes or a mess.
Obviously as an artist you want the viewer to walk away from your painting with something. Some sort of experience or feeling or thought or impression. even if it's a bad one. what is art if it doesnt create a response?
i just don't see why there has to be soooo much analyzing for every single painting. Don't get me wrong, i think some abstract art definitely is created for analyzation and others deserve to be analyzed just because. I'm just saying that art like Pollock's (which i could be completely wrong about this cause I don't know anything about him or his process, but that's the risk of making art- people have their own views on it) seems more like a visual experience to me rather than an analytical experience, and why are people trying to find stupid shapes in it?