The Gap Between Art and the Viewer

I'm not intentionally trying to stir up trouble here, but this is something that needs to be addressed by the art world.  There is a huge gap between the fine art world and the general public.  I have never been comfortable with art that has to be explained to the viewer, but in many examples, there has to be some sort of explanation given for the artwork.  As I have experienced not only at the most recent Quilt National and in numerous art galleries and museums, I often still fail to see what I am supposed to see.  Especially with contemporary art.

What am I missing? Is it just me that has this problem?

Is this art or just a busted-up piano?

Yes, it is just a busted-up piano, but I like the shapes that the parts create, and it could be an interesting abstract composition in an art quilt (or some other media).  However, if I translate this image into my own art, should I try to assign more meaning to the finished work?  Would the average person catch that it is a reference to a line in a Tom Waits song*?  Probably not.

What are your criteria for "good" art?  Why do you make art?  Is art a valid form of communication?  Should it be a form of communication?  What would it take to get more people into art museums, and to local art fairs to buy art?

*If you are curious, the song is Cold, Cold Ground ("The piano is firewood, Times Square is a dream /
I find we'll lay down together in the cold cold ground").  Then there is the quandary of figuring out what the song means...