That most lazy of criticisms that one hears leveled at a work of art — that it isn’t ‘relatable’ — is lazy not only because it suggests that art should not contain anything unfamiliar, nor challenge an audience in their convictions, and instead present itself to them as a series of reassurances, or a mirror that reflects back at them what they hope or believe to be true of the world, but also because it isn’t really a criticism at all, but merely an admission, from whoever has given voice to it, that they do not wish to be asked to exercise their imagination and their intelligence, nor to ask themselves, or somebody else, if they do not immediately grasp the artist’s intention, ‘What does this mean? What is this thing that I’m seeing and do not understand?’ And to sit with those questions for a while.