There's just no way to see it coming, I had to ease my way into looking at them. them. I love that post of yours that you linked, our intentions are similar. In my first post of this tag I was in awe of how art can do things to me, its audience. When we look at a painting, really experience a painting, it's no longer striking a pose for us on a wall. We step into the painting's house now man. It can and will make its statement and will not hear your replies or care about your reaction. If we want to appreciate the art and find the meaning, we'll shut up and listen. So, if you connect to a painting it will offer you the ideas you're referring to, regardless of "how much" is in it. I dont imagine a painting to he quantifiable like that. That green rectangle didn't have as much variety of color but it still made me really damn frustrated. If I just scrolled by the first Podhajsky, I would notice the vivid colors but I wouldn't have felt it's particular statement, which in that case to me personally was an invitation to explore. You got me rambling, it would be better to ask you, is there truly art that can't be connected to an idea?
A lot of art for me appears unconnected to an idea. On first look, Vermeer's Het Straatje appears to be nothing special, just a Dutch street. It appears to be nothing more than it depicts (I just read something about Kant, so dare I say ding an sich?) But after being pointed out by that very same Art is Therapy tour that it can be seen as a celebration of everyday life, the painting made some ideological sense. The Rijksmuseum had tons of paintings to which I don't know the backstory, the context, the influences well enough to understand what it really tries to say. Most of the paintings there I valued on not much more than their aesthetics. Oh, look, a vase painted with really nice lighting. That's nice. Maybe the painter tried to say something beyond 'I can paint', but to me, that message is lost.