Art history: Understanding abstract expressionism – Part 4

Wikipedia describes abstract expressionism like this:

The movement gets its name because it is seen as combining the emotional intensity and self-denial of the German Expressionists with the anti-figurative aesthetic of the European abstract schools such as Futurism, the Bauhaus and Synthetic Cubism. Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, rather nihilistic.

However, I think understanding abstract expressionism is very difficult for the average Joe. What’s the difference between a Pollock and me tripping over a few cans of paint and splashing it on a drop cloth in the basement? Is it anything more than me being able to “talk the talk” artistically? If the abstraction comes from the artists feelings and emotions then that runs contrary to the “boys don’t cry” mentality drilled into many men from early ages on into adulthood. It’s no wonder the average Joe prefers Dogs Playing Poker” over a Rothko oddly colored canvas. As much as Pollack feels for his work I counter that others feel similar for their favorites.

Without an open mind I don’t think there will be much success in appreciating abstract expressionism. I wonder though how much more understandable it would be if, say, it was influenced by the World War II since the era of abstract expressionism started around that time. I have never heard of a reference to that, but I can surely understand that kind of art in an effort to understanding the horror of that kind of war.

For my two cents I can’t wrap my head around seeing anything in abstract expressionism from my own point of view. I can only try to see it from what the artist might have been going through. I guess I don’t this kind of art as something for the viewer to put themselves in over showing the viewer what the artist has gone through. But that’s just me.