Does art have to be didactic to be art?

answers1: No I don't think it has to be at all . And it does not have
to be, either. There are some really grotesque paintings out there
that are neither pleasurable or nice to look at. But it is still are
none the less and they are famous also <br>
One comes to mind <br>
( The Scream )
answers2: Absolutely not. In fact, "didacticism" in art has been a
diminishing concept since the late 18th, early 19th centuries, though
previously, critics and theorists often had problems with art if it
WASN'T didactic -- that is, if it didn't instruct as well as provide
pleasure. Even so, there were plenty of 16th-18th-century works that
provided pleasure only, and even some from the Greek and Roman
periods. Much art in history has been solely about "delighting the
eye." <br>
<br>
Today, we want art to be visually provocative, to make people think,
but that doesn't necessarily demand that it provide a "teaching
moment," some sort of lesson, which is what didacticism is all about.
Visual provocation need not be traditonally or conventionally
"pleasurable" (there are artists whose work can be described as far
from pleasant but who are certainly provocative), and there are also
fine artists whose work is simply beautiful to see.