That's very true! I didn't try to add a bunch of stars or thing to the background, but the nebulous mist definitely adds a space-like ambiance to this. The red elements themselves are reminiscent of muscle or something of the like too.
No need of stars and realistic elements in these... they simply remind me of. The only question I ask myself not only to you, but other artists about the names of the pictures when they refer to something evil while the content looks beautiful.
it's rather you know something about that that the bigger mass doesn't know about and you count on the better informed part of individuals which understand what you mean OR you simply smacked it up there without much thinking. To me abstracts are something to distract the attention from the daily heaviness, not refer to something specific and when I read stuff like evil, war, blood I start association with harm which I do not benefit from ... ... ...
My first reply to this was decimated by Notepad's word wrap, so for the sake of easier reading, I'll put it up again:
"it's rather you know something about that that the bigger mass doesn't know about..."
I have all artistic freedom to make what I want and call it what I want. I do not create artwork with an intent to illustrate anything in anyone's mind but my own, and likewise, I title it something that my mind associates with it. Does this mean that I'm better informed about the function of the title in relationship to my artwork than anyone else? Probably. Does this mean that some people won't understand how my mind interprets a piece of artwork I make and why I choose to call it what I do? Most likely. Do I see this as an issue? Not really.
"...and you count on the better informed part of individuals which understand what you mean OR you simply smacked it up there without much thinking."
I do appreciate the not-so-subtle antagonism.
Additionally, however, I don't expect people to view things in the same way that I do. I find my artwork a way for my mind to reside and roam around in a fantastic space, and that's as much as I want other people to do as well. I don't care if they interpret my artwork differently than I do, or if they disregard the meaning of the title and find something entirely different that resonates with them; I just want to provide a way for that to happen.
The only question I ask myself not only to you, but other artists about the names of the pictures when they refer to something evil while the content looks beautiful."
The short answer: The concepts of "evil" and "beautiful" are not exclusive of each other or indicative of each other in any way, nor is something that may be considered "evil" in one place always be considered "evil" in other places.
I will define evil as "something that is truly abhorrent." Furthermore, I will restrict its definition: the concept of "evil" is limited to actions or concepts that themselves are abhorrent, not upon any object or entity that is capable of performing evil acts. Keep in mind that there are games, movies, and stories that exist which take character types, which may sometimes be considered "evil" due to their representations elsewhere, and stick them in a story as the protagonist against people who are actually doing evil things. Artwork is no different -- it can do the same thing.
Your prior quote, combined with a later statement of yours ("To me abstracts are...") implies that your classification of "abstract artwork" is based on your own perspective of what abstract artwork is. Additionally, you limit it to things that you want it to be, not what the medium itself is capable of accomplishing.
If you feel that what I do is colliding with your own definition of the medium, perhaps it's because what I am trying to accomplish is, in fact, more than you want the definition of the medium to exist as.
"and when I read stuff like evil, war, blood I start association with harm which I do not benefit from"
Nobody is forcing you to look at anything, and artwork that covers those topics will exist regardless of them benefiting you or not.