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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The artistic productions are pretty special insofar as there are different interpretations of their meaning and whether or not they actually do convey any understandable meaning at all. Some people might argue that a piece of art is useless unless it contains a precise message that it does effectively transmit to the viewer, no matter the level of knowledge the latter has in the field of art. I personally, think pretty much the oppposite. To my mind, artistic productions should not be based upon how well they convey a message neither on whether or not they do contain any explicit message at all.
The most compelling reason that makes me think so, deals with the goal of art itself. An artist, by definition, tries before all to establish an imaginary connection between his/her piece of art and the one who views it (or listnes to it). Art is therefore more of a matter of provoking feelings and emotions, or admiration of beauty, rather than explicit assertion of a factual data. A good example is music. The masterpieces of the most well-known compositors such as Beethoven or Mozart, don't aim to convey any special message that the listener should seek to understand. Rather, they stroke our feelings and thoughts. Moreover, even the way one conceives art can vary from one person to another because art is rather subjective than objective, contrary to science or technique for instance. Thus, it is not accurate enough to base the critic of an artistic production on how well it conveys a particular message since it is not its goal.
Secondly, claiming that those pieces of art that are not understood by some people should put their merit under question, is to my viewpoint, inexact. Consider some paintings, say by Picasso or other famous painers. It is not always easy for ordinary people to decipher the potential meaning of them, but can this lead one to reject the merit of these works? Of course not.
However, some people would claim that a work of art is useless if it is not understood by everyone. They might argue that if a peice of art does not lead to conveying any message, there would be no need to go to cinema, theater or museums, at all. What would be the use of "wasting" time in front of scences that are deprived of all understandable meaning. Nevertheless, to me, these people are overlooking the power of art which lies upon this precise apparent lack of significance. It is, in fact, up to the spectator to interpret it in his/her way, since there are no universal values to be conveyed.
In a nutshell, I think that the merit of art mainly involves its power in reaching people's feelings rather than trying to convey a precise message. Thus, I reckon that the merit of art is not based on how well people can understand it, but on how much they are moved in viewing it.