One has to agree visual art is a form of communication but the message must emerge from the art work, not from a treatise published in conjunction with the exhibition, an essay posted next to the exhibit, or the gallery manager having to explain that Textural Splotch on every exhibit to every visitor. Artistic communication is a mutual exchange and when visual artists speak through their work they must be heard even by those who don't understand the visual language. Visual communication opens an avenue for dialogue between the artist and viewer that spans time, geography and culture. When a work of art is mute, it's wall decoration - see it once, see it all, don't have to look again. It may indeed be highly skilled and very pleasing to the eye but if it fails to activate the mind or emotions in the viewer, there' s been a breakdown in communication, please try again.
Visual art speaks volumes.
Still lifes can communicate a love for either the subject or the act of painting, landscapes may evoke environmental concerns or explore perspective, figurative images form a narrative or flaunt certain skills, non-figurative works discuss theories or express moods, symbolic motifs will speak universally or personally. All the reviewer can do is note what the artist is saying, decide if it's honest, and define how the message is communicated visually. When the integrity of an artist's missive reaches out from a work to engage me in a visual dialogue, then the art work has to be judged good even if I don't like what it's saying. Art appreciators can easily accept skill, originality and communication as measurable attributes of art but many forget that in order to have credibility in the broader community, art should be relevant to something outside itself. When reviewing an art exhibition I try to look beyond the artist's level of talent, acquired knowledge and artistic constructs to see if the work references a passion held by its maker.