I remember the hilarious moment when, in a very high-tech public toilet
somewhere in Europe, I first ran into a sink which had no handles to open
the flow of water. With soap all over my hands, I first looked for foot
switches, then something on the wall s. Finally, I noticed a telltale
reddish-black plastic window just below the faucet, an infrared sensor
which recognized body heat. Putting my hands under the tap caused the
water to flow. So this also points out how we develop certain habits of
intera cting with the world, and these can be powerful conditioning
factors for an audience in finding the way an artist intended for them to
interact with his or her work.
Duchamp's idea of the art coefficient says that every work of art can be evaluated, in part, as ratio between that which is intended by the artist and not expressed in the work, and that which is unintentionally expressed by the work. In other words, rec ognizing that each work finally escapes, to some extent, from it makers intentions, and these are the two main factors which come between the original intention of the artist and the understanding of the work by the audience.
And I think that there is a reverse side, from the point of view of the audience, which is how the work behaves in relation to their expectations, and I think I have to say that our audiences are largely still in a period of time analogous to that in whic h audiences expected pictures to be clearly representational, poems to be nice stories couched in a rhyme. I expect an audience to bring to this work the same ability to handle abstraction, paradox, and complexity as they have evolved for other forms of art, and I think it is not interesting to make variants of these familiar forms in order to take a supposedly higher moral ground by making works that are "easy to understand".