I would like to add that some works of art are meant only to deliver a concept Alexander Rodchenko painted three canvasses, each one painted in one solid color. He had in idea. He wasn't simply applying paint to canvas.

Or take Lucio Fontana: he slashed razor cuts into canvas. What was the idea ? Well, I interpret them as the expression of a desire to reach into the picture, or to paint something that simply cannot be painted.

Are these beautiful things ? I am not sure. Do they have a point ? Sure they do.

And they are not less meaningful because they do not come elegantly weapped.

Now, what would be problematic is if today I painted pictures like Rodchenko's. I would be a repeater of common knowledge, and artistically speaking I would be dead. But, he did it first, he said it first, and he expressed a feeling that, BTW, was not only his feeling, because he was speaking for a particular society in a very special moment in history: the Russian Revolution.

Oh, and I do not agree that art is meant to be admired, or appreciated, or enjoyed. Some art is meant to piss off the onlooker.