Art, like any other discipline has to be studied to be appreciated on more than a superficial level. I usually equate people who refer to those who appreciate art as "artsy fartsy" on par with those who protest against graphs and numbers that help illustrate ideas, who refer to mathematicians as "geeks" or athletes as "jocks". All of that stems from off hand dismissal of things one doesn't understand, and lack of curiosity to find out more about the subject.
Good point, but you need to factor in that different people look for different things in art.
For example, I am, and have always been, a prodigious reader of fiction (reading is my favourite activity). I studied literature at school and in tertiary education to age of 18 because that seemed in tune with my reading passion. This included all the usual works appropriate to that age group and academic level including Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Marlowe, the metaphysical poets, Flaubert, Austin, Joyce, the war poets etc, etc.
However, the more familiarity I got with great literature, the more I came to realise that it didn't do anything for me. I learned that what I get out of fiction is not what literature is about. I love fiction that is a ripping yarn, that sends you deep into an imaginary world, that creates mystery and puzzles that grip you and sweep you along with the characters and which the author neatly resolves for you by the end of the story (or promises to in the sequel). That is my passion in fiction.
Literary works are rarely like that. I do not want to spend hours of my life reading about the mundane events of a dull tea party, only to be told that I missed the point and it was really a disguised symbolic discourse on the state of local politics in a small village I've never heard of in 1870. Or whatever. I don't find any fun in that. I also find that the inventiveness, skill and technical excellence in a piece of writing may be something that can be appreciated but it is no substitute for being gripped and entertained. If I need to find out about something, I read a non-fiction treatment of the subject, not try and tease it out of a story. The stuff that sends literature fans into paroxysms of joy, I find inutterably dull. And no doubt literary fans would say that my choice of fiction is unsophisticated, juvenile and anti-intellectual.
There is so much deliberate obscurity, disguise, the symbolic, the allegorical in literature. Some people love that. I get that, but it's not me. I forced myself to re-read Dubliners to see whether the perspective of another 40 years had changed my opinion of it. It's considered one of the greatest short story collections of all time and The Dead is a candidate for the greatest short story of all time. I haven't changed my mind, it was torture and it took me ages to read such a slim volume. Alistair Reynolds keeps me up all night turning pages and leaves me emotionally wrung out by the end, but I find I don't care what a genius Shakespeare was, nor do I care about Mr Darcy's fate or Chaunticleer's, for that matter.
I admit it, a philistine. Every one has their own taste and knowing that there are millions of people who prefer custard to single cream can't make me appreciate custard. No one can actually help their taste, they discover it, not create it. Referring to the "artsy fartsy" is a bit contemptuous but likewise, the intellectuals who look down on skillful popular taste have their own issues.
