I find it incredible that, in the year 2003, people still don't understand that some art cannot be appreciated passively. If there is one overarching trend in the history of 20th century art, it is a movement from an art of passive, one-way communication, toward an art that requires the audience to take part in the synthesis of meaning, and asks us to learn about ourselves.
Some art hands its meaning to you on a silver platter, predigested. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; I've got books and CDs full of this kind of art.
But there are certain artworks which will give you nothing if you don't actively engage them. These artworks throw the question of meaning back into the audience's lap. If you find no meaning in them, it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the artwork - it might reflect poorly on your own lack of imagination and intellect. Or maybe you're just not trying.
Sorry to sound like a snob here, but come on, people. This album's detractors admit that they don't understand what it's all about; why, then, do they feel qualified to pass judgement on it? Do they also feel qualified to be wine critics and financial advisors?
Believe it or not, just because you don't understand or appreciate something, doesn't mean that people who *do* are being pretentious. In fact, slinging around accusations like that just makes you sound like the sort of redneck who thinks it's "fancified" to drink imported beer instead of Coors Light. If you don't get it, fine, but don't be a jerk about it.
Better yet, find a good history of modern art. Study it well. Understand that art since 1900 has evolved myriad new modes of creation, perception, and cognition, and that you may not have learned about all of these through pop culture. If you still don't like it, more power to you, but at least then you'll know what you're talking about.