Institutional Critique

Just finished reading The Institutional Theory of Art by Robert J. Yanal and within the first lines I read:

Danto's offers this solution to the paradox (the paradox which is found in Warhol's Brillo Boxes when one looks at these Brillo Boxes as art in a gallery but those in a shop are not): "To see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry - an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld."


I don't completely agree with this as art is not only for the eyes of those who have studied art/studying art. Whether the work is going to be placed in gallery/site-specific space/the streets etc it is going to be accessible by all sorts of different people, and no doubt there will be people who have little or no knowledge of artistic theory that are going to see that work and going to feel or think something, or not feel or think anything at all.
I understand that it requires some knowledge of background history of the artist or whatever techniques he/she has used to read the work but sometimes I believe people try to hard to read in to a work, desperately trying to find something and solve what is presented to them. When really all the work requires you to do is stand back, look, and feel something. I think I'd prefer to hear feedback about my own art from the general public rather than some critic. I don't want to read an essay about my work when all they really need to say is 'Your work is crap, you need more colour' (I'm not saying everything a critic or whatever a member from the art community writes is useless but I just feel this way sometimes when things can actually be pretty simple if you just let it)