Professors of art as well as professional art critics make art overly difficult to appreciate, understand, and enjoy.
Here is my simple criteria for what is art as well as whether it is successful.
1. Art is a media used by a person to communicate an idea, emotion, or a thought or a set of thoughts by engaging either the passive or active observer. Art is successful if the observer is able to engage in such a way as to understand or be emotionally moved by the art work. Art can be sound, words, physical media, or all of the above. It is successful if the intended message or emotion intended by the artist is understood by the observer. The measure of success in communicating the ideas is one measure of an artist's skills as an artist. Cave paintings, where almost all measure or understanding of the artist's intent or the context of the culture of the artist has been lost to the viewer, still are successful as measured by the emotional reaction of the observer. Even though the exact message has been lost to time, the emotions of wonder and awe remain. It is clear that this was one intent of the artist.
2. Art is NOT someone taking a dump in the middle of the desert. That is excrement. However, even if the purpose of the excrement was to intentionally construct "something" with the intent of communicating a message, the overwhelming revulsion of the "project" would nullify any artistic merit that might have been sought by the artist. There are other, less harmful ways to communicate a political, social, or ecological message and regardless, the success of such an endeavor would likely fail to communicate the intended message.
3. Which brings me to my last point, the artist is communicating. They have an audience. We measure the greatness of art by how readily the art can communicate to numbers of people, both now and in the future. Art with a finite audience or art that "is in the moment" tends to be forgotten and relegated to the interest of historians. It doesn't mean it wasn't art, but its success as art is easily forgotten or lost to time.
There are reasons why timeless art is often that art that has elements of beauty. How is that the Rape of the Sabines is represented in many artworks and still holds up as beautiful, even when it is communicating something that was horrific both then and now? There is a timelessness to the art, a level of skill, and a sense of workmanship that our minds perceive as beautiful. It is the combination of all these elements that work together to create a sense of beauty.
One last thing. If art requires a lengthy explanation by an "expert" in order to be appreciated, it seems to me that the artist has failed to communicate and that the art is indeed lacking in some essential quality. There should be little to NO "filters" between the artist, the art, and the observer.
Just my two cents.
