I don't think this phenomenon is limited to abstract expressionism though. Even being from Iowa, I didn't understand what was special about American Gothic until I saw it in person.
Still don't get it.
Looking for an source that can explain it to me.
I found the paintings terrible, but knowing I usually understand them more once I understand the artist I went to go watch the video. During the video there was a couple rude guys who started snickering at the video. Usually I get kind of upset about this sort of thing, but to be honest, I actually agreed with them. I came away from the experience feeling like I had just been part of a huge prank.
I learned that day that Rothko's painting are trash.
A couple years later I was in a small museum in another country, and across the room saw a painting of a couple of poorly rendered squares in flat shades and thought, "I bet that's a Rothko." Sure enough it was, and now I can recognize his paintings from 20 meters away. So I guess his work is recognizable and unique and I've learned some very begrudging respect for his work that way I guess -- they're at least recognizable trash.
May I ask how you came to the conclusion the painting are trash - and not just that you personally didn't like the paintings?
Why? If you look closely, it is imperfect. If you look around you can find others, very similar. Perhaps any river could have produced it. It isn't saying anything. It isn't telling you anything. It isn't being anything other than a stone. Yet surely, it can be an object of beauty, causing thought, curiosity, contemplation and feelings.
If a stone, why not a canvas deliberately created from inspiration and feelings? Isn't abstract art even more artful than simply copying what your eyes can see?
[1] https://arthistoryproject.com/artists/giorgio-vasari/the-liv...