donald poses a question that's important to consider. i've thought about it for years and have some ideas that are relevant to me.

as a cellist and teacher, i am sometimes engaged to learn and perform (and sometimes to teach) music that is...well....obscure (to be kind). the composer has chosen to use musical language that isn't readily accessible... that isn't even particularly comprehensible after practice and study. yet, for reasons that probably have to do more with professional pride than anything else, i peresevere and learn the piece. occasionally the effort opens up an unexpected world of interesting ideas....just as often however, it's just plain awful. the thing is...music is temporal, and you have to sit through the entire performance (unless you run, quietly, out of the room.) in real time. the point is...the composer required, in fact demanded, a great deal of both performer and listener. most people have absolutely no intention of making such a committment in time and attention so the music is neither performed nor heard a second time.

photography is far easier to dismiss. i read once that the average viewer spends no more than two seconds looking at images when there are many to view in an exhibition. so if the image is obscure and requires committment to really look at and attempt to comprehend it's not surprising that an audience is even less likely to make the choice to make that effort.

so...neither the composer nor artist/photographer need necessarily offer work in the language of the medium that's the most readily digested, but should certainly not be surprised when there are few takers.