Do you believe it is possible to learn about a piece of art and understand much better what it's about where you didn't before, thus increasing the quality of your subjective experience of it?

Yes.

That's called "inferential distance" as it applies to music; the distance between you before you learnt more about the art and after you learnt more about the art is the inferential distance.

You appeared confused by and dismissive of the concept in music previously. Please go back and see if anything I or komponisto (who thinks quite different things to me, by the way) have said makes any more sense to you now.

But when you get to the point where you're claiming I must first be (in effect) indoctrinated into an insular clique, you're going way beyond that. Once you start getting to pre-suppose feeding the listener a long cirriculum, it's no longer sufficient to say, "hey, after that indoctrination, they liked it, so we were right all along!" As I keep saying, you can make anything likeable by this metric! My point is that any such priming the subject needs must then be compared to other entertainment venues that can apply a similar amount of priming -- you have to account for opportunity costs, in other words.

Er, I at no stage questioned this, and previously agreed with you in saying so.

You appear to be claiming I said things that are a bit like things komponisto said (and which I disagreed with).

I already gave one -- the Joshua Bell experiment.

You didn't answer before so evidently I have to ask again: are you seriously asserting that, rather than being a human interest "fish out of water" story, the Washington Post seriously intended it as a scientific test of Joshua Bell's artistic merits? What?