Reading about art

When reading about something most narratives keeps the reader in the know about who says what. This is exposition, this is controversial, this is not, this is my own view, this is generally acnowledged and so on. But as far as I can see writings about art is different. I guess it expect you to know what is generally acnowledged, but still. These narratives are often pretty pictures framed with facts producing wonderfull visions in my head. But is this a real amalgam not possible to deconstruct? Is it possible to say this is the writers personal experience and this is something objective? Of course artists og critics are educated in these matters and by practice have a hightened perception. But if there is something a person sees because he has learnded to look a certain way, is he then aware of this? If he is, then should he make a narrative note about this being s certain way? And if he is not, should he make a note about this being his personal experience? And would any such note be of help to the reader?

I'm not about telling anyone to write differently about art, that would be stupid indeed. But I want to get, if not a clear picture, then a better feel for what is what in a text about art. I will collect several introductory texts about the same art work.