should art be explained

[Helm]

Art that is supposed to serve a function, as in any social such, should definately be explained, or in the best case, not need any explaining at all. Art that is introspective, and serves the need of personal expression, regardless of it's being understood or not by the general public doesn't stand to gain anything by being explained. This is the same old argument of 'social art' and 'art for art'. There's art that could be both, and in which case the matter lies in which of the two - the social or the personal - the artist deems more important.

Abstract art, by definition is not something to explain. It's supposed to reflect differently on every man, and imposing your own (even if you're the artist) definition on others means that you should not have been making abstract art in the first place.