There are two types of art, or perhaps I should say there are two perceptions of art. There is art as seen from an artist perspective, which is personal, subjective, objective, and somewhat open ended. This perception is based on a background in and around the creative arena, be it formal or informal. This allows the artist to see within an art object what those without training may miss. This may be the choice of colors, the arrangements of elements within the work, layers of subtle expression, etc. Works that fall within this category may be experimental works, or works that don't make any sense to the casual, garden variety of viewer, i.e. the general public. Which brings us to the other perception of art, the broad general public.
I realize that I'm generalizing when I say that the majority of viewing public has little or no education/background in the arts that would truely allow them to view and perceive the subtle meanings of works that don't fall into the "Rockwell" or "Kinkade" genre of art. If the painting is of people, places, events, landscapes, etc., then the public will node it's collective head and say "Yes, that is art, that is beautiful". On the other hand, if you show them a "Kandinsky", their nearly universal response would be "So what, my toddler could paint that". What they don't realize or see is the specific choice of colors and the arrangement of elements, none of which are totally random or without rhyme or reason.
The vast gulf that exist between these two perceptions is one of the primary reasons I choose to paint primarily for myself, rather than the public. I'm expressing my own internal thoughts / emotions, to which I'm responding in a creative visual manner. If someone views my work and it resonates with them, that is great for both of us, but if another views it and finds it incomprehensible, then that is only because we don't have a common visually based symbolic language. We don't speak the same visual tongue.
As such, when viewing my works keep in mind they are envisioned and given form based on my personal visual style and language. Some will appeal to others with a similar affinity for my style of work. Others will find nothing appealing within my works (and a majority may be those who have never tried to create anything).
Painting isn't only an additive process, though there are many painters who feel and work as if it were only an additive process. Adding layer upon layer and detail up detail until the work in progress is completed to their satisfaction. Some internal voice will say to them "that's it, finished". This is a fine way to work, if it suits their style of painting. Other painters realize that painting can be an additive AND subtractive process, by which layers of paint and details are built up and then areas or even the whole canvas is sanded and scraped down and redone. Through this additive/subtractive process, subtle tones and hues are created that may be nearly impossible to recreate with the additive only process.
By using a combination of additive and subtractive techniques, not only can new effects be achieved, but one is more likely to encounter "happy accidents" which enhance the work. Call it serendipity.
That brings us to this next art tile, "Serendipity in Red":

Thanks for looking!
Cheers,
Donald Hawkaye Hill