Quote - I remember Jackson Pollock? Didn't he dip worms in paint and let them crawl around on a canvas and that's art? [quote] 
No, Pollock dipped his brush in liquid paint and swung it at the canvas, producing a splattering effect. However, and this is a salient point, Pollock was actually good at creating esthetically interesting works using this technique. He started off as a post-impressionist (I think this is the correct term), ala middle-period picasso, and started using a looser and looser brush stroke. Even his early abstract splatter paintings are representationalI and even figurative. In fact, most of his "abstracts" are really representational, but not figurative. http://www.kaliweb.com/jacksonpollock/art.htm has a nice selection of Pollack images.

One of the dirty little secrets of abstract art is that most of the good stuff is actually representational (albeit non-figurative); it is often the imitators who produce unviewable junk because they go through the motions without understanding that art has to be about something.

I'm a big fan of abstract art, as well as post-WWII classical music, so my esthetic sense may differ a lot from others in this forum.

Interestingly enough, some of the criticisms levied at Warhol for painting mundane objects like soupcans were also levied at Arthur Honneger, whose musical compositions such as "Pacific 231" and "Rugby" applied the concept of the pastoral tone poem to, respectively, a steam locomotive and a sports game. (Honneger's attitude was that he found trains and sports much more interesting than parks and wilderness.)

That being said, I think that the blue square is just not very interesting.