Art should be explaining?

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от iosif

So, he believes that contemporary art can not exist apart from his explanation. Ie it should already include an explanation.

Well, the exhibition "flies" (Kabakov), for example, even for advanced ... Two or three rooms (large). On each wall of two or three sheets of paper (size-4). On each sheet of two or three flies. Near texts, but not art, but ... flies, from their "person" ... Four months later, after visiting the exhibition I found an article which said that the artist wanted to make it clear that people already have some not so, leaving only the flies, as something decent ... (more "philosophical" was, of course, described) ...

[color="# 666686"]Added after 13 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Konstantin

is useful and necessary to know something about painting "Black Square" by Malevich. Otherwise, neither the square do not understand nor its cost, and (I am not afraid of the word) and artistic value.
If this is the standard classical landscape - what to know what was around? And preceded his writing?

In some cases, need. For example, the plot of the road. In the classical landscape of this story often gives meaning to life's journey, and what happens on the road, too, has an expanded meaning ... And does it matter enrichment culture in general interpretations, what is called hermeneutics, ie themselves become part of the cultural interpretation of the process.