It's an interesting article, although I don't know much about Shakespeare. But it kinda confirms my theory that a good art is like a good puzzle - it requires s

It's an interesting article, although I don't know much about Shakespeare. But it kinda confirms my theory that a good art is like a good puzzle - it requires some (decent) mental effort on the part of the audience to "interpret". And humans have rewards for interpreting data, that's why we like art. Like in a good puzzle, it cannot be too open-ended, because then too many interpretations are possible and there is not enough motivation on the part of casual audience to make something out. On the other hand, it cannot be too straightforward, because then there is only one, obvious interpretation, and that makes the reward for the audience very small. Good puzzles have a balance between those things to maximize the reward/effort ratio involved in solving them. The same is true for art, there has to be enough ambiguity for audience to fill in themselves (leading to satisfaction), but also enough stuff to keep the audience interested.