Acceptance - A Question.

On reviewing my completion of my Art course, I've felt confused as to the reception of my work.
On the one hand I received praise for my exhibition, from both friends and the general public - yet I feel somewhat panned by the professional artists. I have no bones with anyones opinions - I'll make that clear - but it has made me consider the importance of acceptance. Should we worry about the endorsement of our contemporaries if what we're doing brings enjoyment to the intended audience?

Ignoring ones contemporaries is: A - lonelier and B - riskier. While it can fuel uniqueness and purity of vision (remember the saying: a horse designed by committee would be a camel?), it can lead to producing indulgent and 'rudderless' work. Take Vincent Van Gogh, only sold one painting in his lifetime. Think how awful it would have been if he'd have given in to the trend and cast the sunflowers aside. And yet, there is always the fear of becoming the other - an American sitcom writer*. Churning out the same generic material thinking that you're writing Seinfeld when you're actually writing the 23rd season of Will and Grace. But the ratings are too good for you to realise its bile.

The crux of the negativity seemed to come from a feeling that I didn't make it abundantly clear to the viewer exactly what I wanted them to think. Interestingly, something along these lines came up in a Coen Brothers related discussion I had recently. I am the sort of person that likes to find meaning in things - in this case, the use of circles and a hat in The Hudsucker Proxy and Miller's Crossing, respectively. My friend, who has seen more Coen Brothers than I, has come to the conclusion that the Coen Brothers include apparently loaded symbols that aren't actually loaded at all. They mean nothing. But then I suppose that means everything. These signs that lead to nowhere could be their reflection of their belief in the unpredictability of the universe. Things happen because of random chain of events. A man keeps dropping his hat in Miller's Crossing. Is a a symbolic representation of his true self being temporarily exposed, or is it because his hat doesn't have a handy bit of elastic on it? Who knows. But more importantly: who cares?

Does what the artist intended the viewer to think mean anything, so long as their work provokes them to think something? To the Coen brothers, the circles in The Hudsucker Proxy could have had the most in-depth, symbolic subtext imaginable; or they could have meant nothing. Does either intention malign the, possibly contrary, meaning I took from them - I would say, no.

I have had the belief for some time that what I think about something is secondary to the fact that it made me think. I believe this is why I was not so desperate to funnel viewers into one outcome of experience. I even included a feedback board as part of the exhibition because I felt strongly that what a viewer thinks of something is as important as the thing itself. Will this make my work weak and transient: maybe, but not definitely. I think perhaps my real intention was to make people think and find their own meaning. It's not an original intention. Its a dangerously broad intention. But perhaps its a more exciting one than knowing the outcome of people seeing your work before you've even started.

I'm not sure what I think. What do you think?

*The 'American-ness' is referring to the sitcom. I have nothing against American writers.