To be more serious, it's not that the artist has more insight than the audience, but rather the arists initiates a dialogue with the audience intended to /raise

To be more serious, it's not that the artist has more insight than the audience, but rather the arists initiates a dialogue with the audience intended to /raise questions/, possibly to arrive at new insights. To quote Picasso, apropos of a technology discussion board: "Computers Are Useless. They Can Only Give You Answers." Art poses questions. Modern Art as we know it today is the freest field of human inquiry. There are no restrictions, really, on subject or medium. It's completely open. Of course, for that reason, it is the least secure in what it communicates. All other human endeavors of understanding have internal restrictions, for good reason. Math, science, history, scholarship, they all have rules that defines what is and what is not valid, relevant information and understanding. With these restrictions, you get certainty and definitiveness. The modern field of art, being free from such constraints, can address more topics in more varied ways, but in exchange for that freedom, it gives up certainty and focus. The question "What is Art?" cannot really be answered, and is actually irrelevant to the field itself.