Just call me a great big hypocrite. I profess to dislike abstract art, and then go write an article on how to make it. But I don't hate all abstract art, only the 'dishonest' variety. Just like any other school, there are good and bad examples. My own definition is that good abstract art incorporates shapes and colors in a pattern that is pleasing to the eye. Simple as that. You can usually recognize bad abstract work because it cannot stand on its own merit. The artist has to explain that his piece represents some idea or theme - "It may look like child's scribbling, but it really channels the repressiveness of Capitalist society!"

It's the classic "Emperor has no clothes" scenario, and the intellectuals love it because in their own minds, they are proving they are much smarter and more cultured than the regular commoners who don't 'get it'. These people can justify any lousy finger-painting, a jar of urine, or an elephant-dung-Madonna as a modern masterpiece.

Which brings us to Mark Rothko. Rothko began his career in unremarkable fashion, producing amateur work like that seen on the left. When that didn't gain him any notoriety, he moved towards pure abstraction. But Rothko's abstractions aren't the eye-pleasing kind I mentioned, they're always boring, flat canvases. In fact, they are often so unexceptional that they could be confused with industrial scenery. This did not stop pretentious snobs from fawning all over Rothko and showering him with fame.

Taking exception to this, I have created the Rothko quiz. Your task is to determine whether each picture is a Rothko painting, or a photograph taken from a construction yard. Beware, this is harder than it looks - look over all ten pictures before deciding on your answers. When you're done, hit the submit button and see how much of a pseudointellectual you really are.