Misunderstood?

I hate when people delight in producing obscure and confusing pieces of amateur art believing that what they're doing is so difficult to understand and so "wacky" that it can't be critically reviewed or understood. It's cowardly. It is not interesting. Art is the communication of an idea. If the so called artwork is only "understood" by the "artist" it cannot truly be art. It's just a thing, or stuff.

I'm not saying art has to be easy to understand by the masses. I don't get hip-hop or poems, but I'm pretty sure that they're an art form. Could you say the same for someone who intentionally aims to be difficult to understand?...in this case I suppose you could say that this is the idea that they're trying to express. Their expression is the exploration of the language of art...but I think I'm giving them too much credit.

I guess most modern art comes into this category. We're told that it's no longer the artist's role to put meaning to the art, that the meaning comes from the beholder....and the role of the artistic object, be it a painting or installation is to inspire the thought, whatever it may be.....but if that's the case then why do we have to pay. Surely if anything Damien Hurst should have to go 50-50 with the millions he earns from his art to us poor saps who have to make something of it.

No...in most cases it's just another form of zany, wackiness......a crappy prank, a joke no one gets and a very expensive retelling of the emperor's new clothes.