I might say it depends on just how critical/sensitive you were during those first "10" seconds.
You may be the type to try and find out exactly why the artist created but I am not
Trivial to me.
I believe all artists are trying to say the same types of things as all artists -and all people- have been trying to say since the beginning
No real reason to relearn what you know, you know?
The "tricks" employed may change but the message hardly ever does. Art has to be new but there is little new about it. What makes "new" art exciting is how it makes one realize that it really isn't all that "new" at all. It ..disturbs. After a while that feeling goes away because we have accepted another way of seeing.
If you need to analyze for years to understand something you've either overlooked what was under your nose or the painter perhaps didn't do much. IMO.
A person isn't going to like all art even if they can ..."understand".... all art
Art is about much more than just the message it conveys/tries to convey/if it is trying to convey something "real" at all ..that is where I come from.
I might ask you why it is/seems you're trying to belittle me
"It took me a while actually to register the dissonance between night and day.
I think it's brilliant, because it relies on the twofold meaning of a dark tree: either seen from night, or as underexposed shadow of a contre-jour. In that sense, I think it owes a little bit to photography (our own eyes would see more details) but at the same time is gently mocking it by showing the impossible."
"Geez son of sand, get a grip! We're talking about 1920s surrealism, people doing weird stuff for the first time of their lives. Of course it ends up gimmicky after a while.
Oh and the fact that it makes you sick does not mean anything about making other people sick as you imply!"
Those two posts seem to come from two different people IMO