I like abstract art, and in some of my recent websurfing I've stumbled across a lot of haters hatin' on abstract art. I don't get it. The key arguments against abstract art seem to be:
1. It don't look like nuffin.
2. It don't take technical skill like drawing a horsie does.
3. Mean old abstract art fans hate representational art and have overlooked good representational artists.
Taking these objections in reverse order:
3. Sometimes, not always. I like representational art too. Edward Hopper is one of my fave 20th century painters, and my enthusiasm for comics gives the game away.
2. It takes different kinds of skills. Representational art imitates the appearance of God's handiwork; abstract art imitates the logic and processes of God's handiwork. Jackson Pollack's drip canvases look to me like close-ups of tree moss; that's a compliment. He created a new way to represent, not moss, but the processes by which moss (and other growing things) accumulate. Other abstract painters focus on how light hits the eye, and their canvases are like looking through an old windowpane which has been richly textured with time and grime. It takes wise eyes to find these things and bring them to canvas.
As for Objection 1., I just don't get it. If you've ever worn plaid boxers or a striped shirt, you've worn abstract art. If you've ever admired an Oriental Rug, abstract art has touched you life.