So, I just came back home from art history class, right? And my professor, who I REALLY adore the lectures of, said something along the lines of "Abstract art means nothing". Not in a dismissive way, but in an objective, analytical sense - abstract artists don't strive to represent a truth or a reality in their work, ESPECIALLY the more "radical" of the abstract artists of the 20th century. And... that kind of clicked something into place in my brain?

I always struggled to understand abstract art and, like a lot of people, usually dismissed it. But, this sort of reframing of it all, seeing it as a pure materialisation of otherwise immaterial things, rather than a concrete representation of material things, really REALLY cemented abstract art as something truly respectable to me. A lack of concrete and intended meaning does not render the art meaningless - instead, it opens the door to an infinite number of interpretations of the patterns, shapes and colours. Like reading tealeaves or seeing shapes in the clouds, the lack of indended meaning gives us, the observers, all the power over the view.

Paintings can be described as a window, a simple two dimensional plane that's meant to give us a view into a different scene, a describable, tangable view with a meaning and an intension behind it. What of the windows - the paintings - then, that give us views into nonsensical and meaningless scenes?

I think they are often a vessel for introspection rather than presentation, we ascribe personal meaning to things that lack general meaning.
At least, in my opinion.