(e:ajay) - Does art need explanation? I would like to go further and ask, "Does art need meaning to be considered art?"

If art is art, then it doesn't matter where its staged. My father was up here last Monday and he thought that our downstair neighbors ashtray had the butts arranged in an interesting pattern, so he took a picture of it... for him that was art.

(e:Drchlorine) said something interesting and worth repeating -

:Another loser: the intentional alienation of the audience. You can convey the ideas of alienation or confusion without actually alienating or confusing your audience. Employing metaphors and giving NO CLUE as to their meaning anywhere else in the work is one way that artists may commit this foul. Any art that does this without allowing the concession of "the components are open to interpretation" is a sham. You can find the same sort of Tom-foolery from authors of theoretical or philosophical texts. These egg-heads intentionally make their work incomprehensible, knowing full well that if anyone outside of their academic priesthood knew what the hell they were saying, they'd be out of the job.

Something that is intrinsic in its beauty doesn't need explanation, but if an artist creates something that is intentionally devoid of meaning what is it other than just an odd combination of ingredients and nothing more? As far as I'm concerned, art in the classification that Dr. C outlined is nothing more than a shop project. If people can't find beauty or meaning in a piece of art then it isn't art. The worst kind of "art" is the kind in the italicized quote above... people want to see what YOU have to say as an artist - they don't care about what THEY have to say as viewers of art because they already knew that before they showed up to see your installation.