Is there anything that isn't communication?
. . too many cigarettes . . .
. . . too much wine . . . . .
is art anything other than an articulation of someone's/thing's relation to another? The relationships realized in art include the subject's relation to the artist as the artist creates, and the subject's relation to the viewer through the artist's creation (not to mention the complex relations of the artist and the viewer to experiences that prompt the recognition of the subject depicted in the art). The essence of art has something to do with humanity’s connection to things/each other realized in creation.
The recognition of "good art" is triggered by an acknowledgment that there are appropriate criteria for "valuable" creation, and that creation must necessarily possess the attributes that meet those criteria to be "valuable." These necessary attribute are inherently different for different viewers (thus varying tastes in art), however the acknowledgment that there is a - conscious or unconscious - criteria that informs our tastes, suggests that there is an underlying value in art that we all demand beyond the mere creation of things (skill level aside).
It is my view that these criteria are based on our ability to detect a common language (not a common message, duh, art can be "valuable" without being admirable or condonable) that is an acknowledgment of a shared humanity on some level. We must see things replicated in art that establish a connection to the artist, that is, in some way, "relevant" us, for it to be valuable.
In other words, a creator of things is not valuable because she/he create things, but instead is valuable because of the things he/she creates. This serves to further assert that art is an articulation of relationship as it is realized in creation. The viewer desires to be "spoken to," and the artist desires audience, yet unless the subject of the art meets the criteria (the vocabulary) of the viewer, the art is not considered "valuable." Thus something within us believes that a creator of valuable things should have something to say that is relevant to us.
My question is: why does our "fear of the unknown" extend to the reception of art? If one has been exposed merely to music that abides by the rules of western composition, music from the east is unpalatable *because* it is beyond understanding to the listener. Yet, an education in the eastern rules of music composition cannot only give legitimacy to the music, but also endow it with the kind of "value" that is a result of the viewer's acknowledgment of a common language. It is the articulation of something shared that gives art its value . . . this is getting redundant.
Does it follow that our lack of literacy in various forms of artistic expression is the cause for the kind exclusive "taste" acknowledgment that makes a piece of art "valuable" (again, this is not content, but expressive value)? Is there anything that could exchange between humans and maintain a lack of this kind of value if both members were adequately familiar with the medium?
If, contrary to a belief in the universal communicative transcendence of art, the reception of art is (at least) partially determined by the failure to recognize human commonality, art itself could be a study in the perpetual failure of human relationship . . . or something. . . | 
