Is It Up To the Viewer To Learn to Appreciate

I read an op-ed piece about what makes good art, in which the writer made the point that "watch[ing] "patiently" and giving up her "own ideas of what made something interesting, of what made art" gave her "the chance to experience something profound". This may well be true to her experience, but it can also said of the experience of staring long enough at pock marks on a sidewalk, or at a brick wall, or ... Most of the profundity -- the "aha" if there is one -- comes from the viewer's focus and conscience. Shouldn't "Art", or "good" art anyhow, do something more? Shouldn't it make the viewer want to look and look again, and again? Shouldn't it impart an insight that comes from the artist? Asking for an open mind is important, but making the openness of the viewer's mind the lynch-pin of whether a work rises to "Art" or "good" art is not any more of a defense of the work as "Art" or "good" art than saying "I like it". Something about the artwork itself should break through a viewer's skepticism even if that something is hard to articulate or pin down.