Question:
Should art be understood by people?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
It all depends on what you mean by "understood."
If you mean, should it be readily accessable, the answer is decidedly NOT. If you mean, should it be intellectually and/or emotionally challenging, the answer is decidedly YES.
When the Cubists and Futurists burst on the scene in the early 20th century, their work was roundly criticized as being bizarre. But it was merely new. And yet, however new, it was both intellectually stimulating and emotionally evocative. One of the problems is that people get stuck in a rut, and just want a steady diet of the comfortable and conventional. They want something "pretty" -- or even worse -- "nice" (ARRRGH!!!)
All art must ultimately have a purpose, though. All too often today, would-be artists just throw things together without thought or real inspiration, and they call it "art." Well, just because you call it art doesn't make it so. I can call myself a Guernsey Cow, but that doesn't mean I'm going to chew cud and give a gallon of milk.
Should art always strive to shake people out of complacency with a new vision? Absolutely. But that vision must always be guided by sound intellectual and aesthetic principles, otherwise is has no more claim to art than the scratching of a hyper-active four year old. The successful work of art should always cause the individual to stretch outside the comfort zone of conventional expectations.
Hope this helps. Cheers, mate.