If a visitor doesn't "get" the concept, is a work of conceptual art successful as a work of art?

This question opens a proverbial Pandora's box in terms of art historical theory. Throughout the history of art, the question of whether a work of art is successful or not (and how one would measure success in the first place) has been pondered by artists, audiences, and critics alike. Does it remain the sole right of a work's creator to determine its success as measured against the intentions he had for the work? Is a work deemed to be successful if a viewer likes it or "gets it", or is it alternatively seen as a failure if someone either dislikes or doesn't grasp it? Or is it ultimately up to the critic, the writer who is familiar with the artist's approach and intention to write a favorable review if a particular piece fits in to or expands upon an artist's oeuvre? There are so many questions regarding how to measure an art work's success that a particular field of philosophy called reception theory has developed over the years to debate this very subject.

My goal for this exhibition was to provide insight into some of the intentions with which particular artists were approaching their art, thus supplying a little background information that might, just might, shed light on why a non-objective work looks the way it does. It goes without saying that one particular art work will never appeal to all that view it, since everyone comes to view art with a subjective background, education, and feelings that will shape his or her reaction to a piece. Even with all the didactic information accompanying each work in this exhibition, a viewer may very well still not connect to the work, or "get" the concepts behind it. In my personal opinion, this does not mean the work of art has failed, or that this exhibition has not done its job. Rather, I think this reveals one of the reasons why art is so interesting to so many people and has fueled fires of debate throughout the centuries. I feel that art will forever remain a subjective enterprise, both for the artist that creates it and the viewer that visits museums and galleries to look at it. And this is why it is so important on a cultural, societal level. It allows each and every one of us to bring our own ideas, feelings, and ultimately interpretation to paintings, sculptures, prints, and more. The fact that I Don't Get It, its gallery message board and this blog have opened a dynamic dialogue about the field of non-objective works and the various opinions of all who view it reveals the power of art to effect its audience.