Picasso is on the borderline of the representational very often, IMO. Kandinsky, otoh, has never really entered what I have called here my attention zone. Quick answer to that query as a whole is that some of the works of those cited will fall foul of my credo, others will qualify for appreciation. As with 'folk' [see passim] there is obviously going to be a wideish borderline involved in considering what qualifies within the taxonomy.

What I call my 'credo' applies far more, note, to individual works that to specific creators. So I can cope with much Joyce, but really couldn't be bothered to spend any significant time whatever trying to come to terms with F's Wake. Dylan Thomas I often do not greatly care for, sometimes for other reasons than just comprehensibility, but will state that I have an absolute overwhelming no-holds-barred love for Under Milk Wood [in which I was once delighted to be offered a smallish part and have emjoyed few productions more].

Hope that answers at least some of your points, Al. Glad you sort of get what I mean; and not sure, re your last point, that 'knowledge' is precisely the matter at issue. I mean, how can one 'know' what is deliberately stated in terms purposefully to militate against apprehension? -- a sort of 'back to ▢-1' question...

≈M≈