Over analysis in contemporary art, such as a definitive explanation of some particular art object beats said art object on the scale of importance these days. Consequently this piece of art becomes just a second rate illustration to a third rate piece of writing or verbalizing, which one one does prefer. It is not just a code for a brain to crack. Allowing individual's perceptive part more freedom when contemplating art is only right, because otherwise art fails its purpose. Art suppose to be something that gets you, gets through to you, now days this is something you get with the view to get more for it in a form of the return in the truckload of monetary units. Interesting how it flipped sides, historically art used to be something to put in churches to affect (among others also the great unwashed) and explain not in words, because many were illiterate, but through immediate perception to anyone the scripture, divine power, bring the distinction to the place. Now trite useless explanations substitute art or perhaps just a bad art.
I am not a fan of conceptual art, video art and similar, for the reason it usually bores me to the dangerous levels of exhaustion.
I remember one that I liked though. It perhaps was some crossover art breed between conceptual art and sculpture... I would also describe it essentially as a 3d abstract work. It was displayed in a way of the installation, don't remember the title, gallery (I've seen it on internet), or the artist, just what it was. In the gallery room, there was quite an amount of dark rocks displayed. I think people could just walk among them. They were put on some platforms, so rocks were approximately on the eye level. Eyes go wandering from one rock cluster to another, you yourself wondering what it is all about, until you notice one rock with a small white cross on the top of it. The interesting thing, rocks would be just that, rocks if not for a minimal touch that brought sense of scenery and a scale to the whole display, and all this achieved so effortlessly. I experienced a sense of wonder of sorts, how such a minute detail has a power to change whole scene for you in a blink. The transformation of the scene into a landscape with a sense of scale achieved so beautifully, through the gradual perusal of the work to a sudden realization and only then instant absorption of it. It hits me all the time I remember it.
I don't really believe there is such thing as abstract art, literally speaking. Art is only as good as it is able to affect a viewer. Such an impact is possible through associations. Anything outside associations people perceive as meaningless. Human brain always strives to make a connection, bring meaning to 'a picture', order to chaos and so on. It is just a question where the line is drawn, how much is left vague. As with the rocks, where the cross was a clue, any kind of clue for an observer.
From abstract paintings I quite like Keith Tyson's nature paintings. There can be found plenty 'nature' associations.
Edit: I thought I overlooked something, thanks to long typing. To answer the following question
In this case I am almost purely emotional and others almost purely analyzing while as you know the opposite is more often the case in the rest of the life of someone with a INTP personality. Why do we switch places here?
I've just thought about music subforum on this site, you can find quite diverse number of approaches there, although I doubt even INTP's dryly analyze their way into appreciating music they like. Another thing, famous representetive of INTP type, if he really is, Einstein took to Mozart's music in his teens, because he was suddenly bowled over by its beauty. I believe perception of beautiful comes from few different places, like intellect, comprehension, feelling meaning deep undersanding, but profoundly so, akin to spiritual recognition, yet not emotions. Emotions are like afterthought, maybe, ripples , or waves on the surface of the ocean.
