Many painters of realistic artworks are really talented. They could capture a minute superbly - whether that's a lush landscape, stormy seascape, authentic looking still-life or perhaps a striking likeness of a person in a portrait. However - as skillful as these artists are - a similar result could be obtained with a photograph taken with a modern camera. Artistic embellishments can even be made after the photograph is taken.
The question could therefore be asked: Are these life-like reproductions truly "Art"?
On the other hand, an abstract artist produces the painting from within. The artist has some vision they wish to fully capture and display for others to see. The artwork may not resemble anything "real" - nevertheless the mixture of colours used as well as shapes, shading and textures seeks to represent what the artist wants to convey. This really is based on the artist's mood, feelings and insights at the time of the abstract painting's creation.
Among the beauties of abstract art paintings is that seldom will art observers have the same interpretation of the artwork. Although they've the same physical input from the artist - each viewer also includes their very own past experiences, viewpoints and biases. They'll have their own particular mood and feelings at the time of observation. The surroundings in that your abstract artwork is displayed also significantly influences the viewing experience. contemporary abstract artists Each one of these factors subscribe to the interpretation produced by that particular art critic being quite unique. (I am not referring here to the unfortunate and artificial situation in art schools where students frequently learn the accepted interpretations from previous "art experts".)
Will the observer's interpretation be exactly like that intended by the artist? Not necessarily.
But does this matter? The uniqueness of interpretation of abstract art is its major strength.