If a painting is created mainly to match a luxurious interior rather than to express something deeply personal or challenge ideas, then it leans more toward decorative art, even if it’s technically a painting. It becomes part of the decor rather than a standalone statement.
That raises an interesting question—does the intent of the artist or the way the artwork is used define whether it’s fine art or decorative art? If someone paints with raw emotion and meaning but it ends up as a luxury wall piece, does that change what it is?
Especially with modern abstract painting—it’s everywhere in high-end homes, hotels, and corporate spaces. A lot of it seems designed to be aesthetically pleasing but not too thought-provoking, so it blends into the environment rather than demanding attention. It feels like abstraction has been commercialized into a luxury good rather than a form of deep expression, at least in many cases.
Of course, that doesn’t mean all abstract art today is purely decorative. There are still artists pushing boundaries and using abstraction in meaningful ways. But a lot of what sells seems to be more about fitting a vibe than saying something.
“You really need faith in yourself to make art and to stand up for what you believe in.” — Elizabeth Peyton
ELIZABETH PEYTON (B. 1965) Jude Law as Lord Alfred Douglas titled and dated ‘Jude Law as Lord Alfred Douglas 27.11.98’ (on the reverse) watercolor on paper 29 ¾ x 22 in. (75.6 x 55.9 cm.) Painted in 1998. Price realised USD 187,500
“Impressionism was the name given to a certain form of observation when #Monet, not content with using his eyes to see what things were or what they looked like as everybody had done before him, turned his attention to noting what took place on his own retina (as an oculist would test his own vision).”
JohnSingerSargent The Black Brook c.1908 Oil paint on canvas 552 × 698 mm
