Abstract Art Is Not Intuitive Art: A Beginners Blur

In the age of expressive freedom and social media-fueled creativity, many aspiring artists proudly claim to be “painting abstract.” What they often mean, however, is that they are putting colors and marks on a canvas without much thought - an act of emotional release, intuitive play, or plain experimentation.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But let’s be honest, that is not abstract art. It’s intuitive art - and it’s time we stopped confusing the two.

Abstract Art Demands Thought (or at least forms and relations)

Abstract art isn’t about chaos or accident. It’s about structure without representation. A great abstract painting is built on intention, discipline, and visual understanding. It replaces real-world imagery with a new visual language - one made up of form, color, line, proportion, and space - all choreographed with precision. Sure you can create out of nonsense too, but is it through thought or feelings?

Look at Piet Mondrian, arguably the greatest abstract artist of all time. There is nothing random about his grids, nothing casual in his use of red, blue, yellow, black, and white. Every line is a decision. Every gap, a calculation. His work is clean not because he lacked emotion, but because he trusted the structure to express something beyond personal feelings — something universal.

This is not someone throwing paint at a canvas. This is someone thinking in color.

Pollock Threw Paint - But With a Plan

Yes, Jackson Pollock physically flung and dripped paint - but not as a whim. He developed a system, a choreography of movement and balance. He worked from all sides of the canvas. He understood the way gravity, rhythm, and momentum would interact. The result was abstract, yes - but not random. There’s an internal order to his chaos.

Pollock’s abstraction is a language he invented - it just happens to be loud, kinetic, and emotional. But don’t mistake that energy for mindlessness. There was intention behind the motion.

Intuitive Art Has Its Place - Just Call It What It Is

Intuitive art is not worse - but it’s different. It can be a powerful form of personal exploration. Many artists use it as a healing tool, a form of meditative process. It’s often emotion-led rather than thought-led. Color becomes mood, gesture becomes release. But when beginners or hobby artists skip the fundamentals of composition, balance, color theory, and still call it “abstract,” they flatten the meaning of abstraction. They turn a complex and historic movement into a catch-all for "anything non-representational." That’s not just lazy - it’s misleading.

Why This Distinction Matters

Because honesty matters.

The point isn't to say that beginners or intuitive painters aren't “real artists.” The point is to ask: Are you aware of your process? Are you thinking about what you're making, and why? That’s what separates a curious artist from a casual maker. Not style. Not status. But a willingness to reflect, to ask harder questions, to be deliberate - even in play.

Many who throw paint and call it abstract might benefit more from asking what they're actually doing. Maybe it’s intuitive expression, maybe emotional processing, maybe just fun - and that’s valid. But labeling it “abstract art” without understanding the tradition or intention behind abstraction does a disservice to both their own growth and the depth of the movement.

This isn't about earning your place next to Mondrian or Pollock - it’s about being honest with yourself. And when you do that - whether you're painting with a ruler or your fingers - you get my blessing. 

Does it matter? No. Do I care? Yes.

Abstract art is not a shortcut. It’s a language with grammar, rhythm, and restraint. If your only criteria is “it feels right,” you’re not speaking abstract - you’re speaking intuitive. nothing wrong with that but... Respect the difference.