The reasons for rejecting naturalistic, realistic portrayal are best explained here. Loosely speaking, there are two major aspects you consider when analyzing a work of art: its representational and expressive quality. To put it simply (meaning to exaggerate it to illustrate the maximum properties of each), you appreciate the resemblance to the actual object portrayed, and you consider what emotions and experiences stand behind it. The What and the How is represented. Imagine that you take all the paintings in the world and place them in line, with those that best represent the reality to the point of maximum resemblance to the extreme left, and those that convey pure emotions to the extreme right. Figurative (also called representational or objective art) will take the left, and non-figurative (non-representational, non-objective) paintings will take the right. To the left you will get the paintings that are aimed at refined draftsmanship and the closest resemblance to the subject portrayed, with minimum artistic expression – like hyperrealists, for instance. To the right you will receive paintings that represent virtually nothing – no object as encountered in real life, yet the meaning, the expressional qualities will be developed to the full – there to the extreme right you will find the “Black Square” by Kazimir Malevich. A person who prefers non-figurative paintings treats fine arts as just another way of self discovery. You do not appreciate images and symbols as much as you look for associations that provide food for thought. You are eager to look into the forms and colour combinations to see the absolute harmony that cannot claim to be absolute once confined into a single specific image or symbol.