To consider abstract and photorealistic art as mere ends of a spectrum is to underestimate the complexity of the artistic world. The non-representational forms of the former and the highly detailed, photographic representations of the latter may appear vastly different, yet both have been met with skepticism as to their worthiness as true Fine-Art.
The photorealistic, with its technical precision and lack of emotional depth, may be seen as nothing more than decorative and not worthy of the title of true art. At its best, abstract art may be decorative and pleasing to the eye, but it often lacks the emotional power and cultural significance that is deemed essential to true Fine-Art.
At its worst, abstract art can be seen as simply a collection of random shapes and colors, lacking any real artistic value, and should be delegated to the category of garbage.
In truth, both forms of art may be considered pseudo-art, rather than true Fine-Art, for they fall short of the basic assumptions about the nature of art held by many.
To learn more about the nature of art, you can read my other article “What is Art?”