Post 1, My kid could paint that, Choice B

I think that the statement, "Art has obligation to explain itself to you. If it doesn't, it's the art's fault," is determined by what kind of art you're talking about. The art Marla creates has no obligation to explain itself to and by doing that it allows the viewer to decide what the art is to them. This is one of the appeals to Marla's and all abstract art. In the movie one of Marla's collectors was telling us what he thought the painting consisted of. The things he told the camera were clearly not what Marla meant to draw but what the man wanted to see.

In abstract art I believe that art doesn't have an obligation to explain itself, but in realist art I believe that it does have an obligation to explain itself. I do not sympathize with the statement though. The paintings that Marla does in a month that are abstract, can make more money than those that the gallery owner does in half a year that are realist. Whether or not it is fair, realist art does have to go further to explain itself because that is part of what defines it as realist, modern or abstract art.