I think there's a certain amount of risk each artist needs to take, in any medium, where on one side you see the intentionally accessible art of the television

I think there's a certain amount of risk each artist needs to take, in any medium, where on one side you see the intentionally accessible art of the television show, and on the other side you see art that challenges the audience in some way: be it obscure, or inherently referential, or historically situated. I love challenging art, but without an art history degree I often can't appreciate it fully without also immersing myself in some critical writing on it. Challenging art almost need to be paired with critics who can provide useful metaphors, historical contexts, or what-have-you to help appreciate the art. Part of my appreciation of challenging works of art comes from reading interesting critical appraisals of them. In those situations I think of the critics and the artists as being somewhat intertwined. I quite agree on the gatekeeper side of things, e.g. critiques who are mainly concerned with questions of taste and judgement, where art that challenges certain norms is judged poorly.