at this point I think it's 100% legitimate to simply answer "what is the point of ugly abstract art?" with "it's an antifascist statement."
and I don't just mean that like oh, because it always makes fascists, like, inordinately angry relative to the actual cultural impact of abstract expressionism
see this video if you have a half hour free for a much more coherent argument
but there is a mistake that I think a lot of art defenders make when someone, whether actually fascist or just a hater, gets all into "my kid could make that"
which is to argue that this work deserves a place on the meritocracy because it is hard, because it is objectively beautiful, because here's a color field painting that's actually a very rare deep color in person, and here's a piece of conceptual art that's heartbreaking once you understand the full story,
and often that's true especially when you're talking about high-profile works in museums
but that's not the point
the point is fuck a single prescribed way to live a Correct Life. the point is fuck a monoculture with one standard of Good Art. the point is to be exposed to things you don't understand. the point is to be exposed to things you don't like, even. in the art museum as on the street.
and on a level that's maybe harder to explain... fuck the idea that quality, that expertise, that productivity are what make a thing worthwhile. did you study hard for that painting that feels like your childhood. did you put in billable hours on that photograph that looks like fear. is it the best, that sculpture that cries out to be touched.
and more than anything, fuck any Art Police running full weewoo lights into an interaction between an artist expressing something meaningful, and an audience experiencing it, just to yell "isn't there someone you forgot to ask?"
God though, the amount of damage fine art collectors (who are more 'weird market investors') have done to the perception of art and artists. A twitter mutual of mine was posting about the Rothko painting that sold for 82.5 million dollars and they spent some time talking about how abstract art is cool (it is) and how Rothko is cool (he is). But the price is still obscene. But... it'd be obscene no matter what it was. It's value can only exist that high because of weird rich assholes trying to move money. Somehow, when people see these numbers, they think some artist somewhere is committing some great sin, being rewarded richly for their seemingly non-existent labor. They always blame the artist and not the people investing. Big Money Abstract Artists controlling the economy! Rothko did well for himself but wasn't rich. Jackson Pollock seemingly sold all his works in the 4 figures.
In fact, art investors want dead artists. They want artists they can control the supply of. When an artist is dead, the supply is fixed and they can buy up most of the art and start creating demand. It's obscene. It burns reputation of art and holds hostages the work of an artist just to play around with extra money. Is that Rothko painting worth 82.5m? Well, capitalistically, it is worth that much but on the merit of it's art? No. But neither would the Mona Lisa, or anything else. Hell, no work, artistic or otherwise, should be worth that much period. But as a culture we irresponsibly indulge the idea that artists are doodling paint around and making millions.
Now, an average person wouldn't bat an eyelash at the Mona Lisa selling for that (hell, it's valuated at like 10 times that) and that's a problem and exposes our biases but once you remove the huge needless money values and high-end fake artworld you can start to just embrace things at face value. It's still a stretch for most people, but it's way easier to get people to just appreciate a thing and how it makes them feel when they're not hung up on the mental image of some rich elites spending obscene amounts of money. These were just folks making stuff they thought as neat and trying to make a little money off it if they could.
It feeds back to the fascist angle too. It's easy to weaponize this art as obscene and degenerate and symptoms of a failing society when you frame it as some crazy ultra elite societal indulgence. That you can look at that Rothko painting and then point at some marble statue screaming SEE!! SEE HOW FAR WE"VE FALLEN!!! Can you BELIEVE how much they paid???? but it's just a rhetorical tool. That obscene, elite society exists without the art. To it, the art is just a tool, co-opting culture in a way that can get them more prestige and hopefully, long run, make them more money. They don't care that their rich people games don't benefit the actual artists, or give ammo to fascy euro art centric jerkoffs.
They can be as gross as they want, because it's the Artists, the long dead artists, who catch all the flak for it.
