In order for any work of art for example a film a novel a poem or a song to have merit it must be understandable to most people

Popularity and comprehension by masses cannot be yardsticks to ascertain the value of a work of art and this is most commonly evidenced by the posthumous success of artists from motley fields. In the words of Oscar Wilde, definition of art should follow the work; the work should not adapt itself to the definition. Creating boundaries and frameworks for art especially based on popular perception would rob art of its essential purpose i.e. to stimulate the senses, and art would merely be relegated to a career that people are propelled towards because of mercenary gain.

Art is an abstract concept, one with no conception of ideal. The value of a piece of art cannot be cloistered in the walls of popular psyche or perception. Artists from Van Gogh to Picasso, literary progenies like Franz Kafka and Jane Austen, music maestros like Bach and Ray Charles had extremely varied styles and were only celebrated for their genius posthumously. Critics and laity alike failed to recognize the merit of their works during their lifetime. However, that did not propel these prodigies to alter their work based on temporal considerations of popular perceptions of their time. Art to truly have merit must be timeless and eternal and be full of vitality connecting with and motivating people.

Art is as much boundary-less as eternal. Artistic masterpieces connect with people across the barriers of language, culture, expertise and even physical handicaps. Music of wizards like Mozart and Bach is often used in therapies of alternate healing for mentally handicapped people. These people might not be able to understand the technical nuances that make this music nothing short of brilliant, but the combined effect of tempo, rhythm, sound is what connects with them and has an ameliorative effect. Fusion of different types of music is testimony that language barriers do not immure true art either. Sufi music is extremely popular across the world and is enjoyed equally by people from myriad ethnicities who in all likelihood cannot understand or even relate to the lyrics.

While art for art’s sake is a prevailing liberal modernism outlook, a new view of the relevance of art is as an instrument to effect social change. This outlook necessitates that art be understood by a majority. The work of art would only be as powerful as the number of people it can inspire and motivate, obscurest and incomprehensible art would be little more than megalomaniacal indulgence by the artist. With art having the capability to transcend boundaries, cultures and religionsit can be a powerful tool to actuate people towards humanitarian ends, bringing people together in an enriching exchange of ideas and thoughts. This would only be possible when art is accessible – physically and cognitively to a majority.

In conclusion, the definition of what makes a piece of work truly art changes over time and neither expert nor popular acclaim can be the litmus test to adjudicate the merit. Art for its own sake serves to stimulate senses of the people and the creative urges of the artist and does not necessitate popular acceptance, but art as a catalyst for change requiresthat must be comprehendible by the populace.