Representation or Abstract?

When sharing my art with family and friends I have noticed their responses are distictly different depending on what kind of work it is. With landscape people tend to wax lyrical about the beauty of the scene, the great sky or clouds, the depth I achieved.

When it's an abstract the comments are usually more general. "I like the colours" or the painting is "interesting" without going into any detail.

So this made me wonder if as a general rule people prefer representational art because they don't have to work at it. It is clear what it is and people can decide quickly what they think and if they like it (or not) without too much effort.

Abstract art on the other hand requires more looking, more making sense of, and more thinking about what they are actually seeing. Even friends who are cloud addicts or see faces in tree trunks or nature seem to struggle. One friend can make up whole stories about an animal in the sky or a face made of bark but seem to be at a loss when presented with a two dimensional abstract. They search for the recognisable and just "don't get it."

This where a title can help or sometimes confuse matters even further. So I have started being more selective with what I show to which friends. There seems little point in forcing a traditionalist to cope with my latest abstract so choose to share them with my more 'artistic' friends. I think most people seem happy with that arrangement. But it does make me wonder about the general public and their attitude.

Perhaps the key is to choose your audience and feed tham accordingly with what they are happiest with.