I was talking about something along these lines with some of my friends who are in museum studies last night. I was saying that art was one of those subjects I felt I didn't understand well because I'd always been in music, and it was only the people who weren't in music classes that got to take art in school.
I think it's like anything else...movies, music, literature...it's not always supposed to be pretty. Lots of times it's supposed to make you think, or feel, and is a commentary about something the artist feels deeply passionate about.
Chopin's "Revolutionary Etude" most people find nice to listen to, but it's also very stormy and emotional because it's got a lot of his feelings about the political situation in Poland (he was unhappy about it). Moonlight Sonata is about love (most people think) but it's sad, too.
Literature's like this too. Lots of great literature is kind of depressing, because it wasn't written to entertain people...it was written because the author had an important message he or she wanted to get across...like in The Grapes of Wrath, or something.
Most of us just want to be entertained, which is fine, but we can't expect all artists, musicians and writers to just live to entertain us. They have causes they are passionate about, and they use their art as a tool, and it can be a powerful one. People got up in arms about slavery, not because of news items, but because of books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (ok, I'm not a lit person, that might not be great literature)
I don't go to movies very often. When I do, I want to be entertained. I want escapism. However, I have friends who see lots of movies and just love movies that are arty, independent, and have a 'message'...I think the less involved we are in whatever form of art, the more we want light enjoyment. The more we become involved in whatever art field, the more we enjoy things that are more "serious".
As far as "art" art...I'll always love the impressionists and probably never have a clue about "serious" art.