I think the term "disturb the comforted and comfort the disturbed" when used in art is mainly brought up when the art is about a sensitive/conterversial topic us meant to be the subject of the art piece (a war, SA, smt about poverty, death, ect.)

As you mention, art can be whatever the artist wants it to be. Art was never meant to just fit two boxes. But I believe that (as I already said) this sentence is mainly targeted at more serious art pieces discussing and showing the ugly.

Thats my personal take since I never hear the phrase around anything else lmao. Feel free to criticize it or add onto it :D (also sr if I spelt conterversial wrong ts aint my first language)

Obviously art doesn't have to follow certain rules to be considered "art". There are some art pieces made to make you feel satisfaction because its pretty, made to make you think about different topics and sometimes even, we can interpret things that the artist didn't think of while making its art piece.

I think you shouldn't feel bad for the artworks made to comfort others because they are people really needing it like you said, but still i personally think that it can be quite important for the ones already "comforted"(that are wealthy,that don't suffer thanks to their privileges) to witness other perspectives of life .
(I totally forgot the name of the artist but I remenber a quote that for him art is made to prepare other people to confront death,to accept their own mortality and live better their lives)

I don’t think art should be put into a box, tbh I think there are very few “absolutes” in the world. Art is up to the individuals interpretation which will vary for everyone.

I never quite thought that "art should disturb the comforted and comfort the disturbed" as a very correct way to categorise art. I was just thinking today that a lot of things truly can be art, and that even the definition of it has become obscure.

Though like VeeR_ said, I don't think people typically use the phrase to describe just any kind of art. It never just fits into the boxes "comforting" or "disturbing". To be honest the topic of what clarifies as art or doesn't reminds me a little of Dadaism :D

Honestly, art is so much more than just comfort. It's meant to invoke all kinds of emotions and feelings or thoughts. I don't think that statement abt comfort applies to everything, not at all. Art is different for everyone, meaning always depends on how an artist portrays something and how the audience interprets it. Some artworks are meant to disturb and comfort, sure, but some are based around other feelings, like sorrow, joy, frustration, confusion or not even about feelings. All depends on the person, so generalizing something so broad into two categories I fear is just not it, not a great thing to do since art is about variety, difference and everything special. Reactions that art can invoke are also vast and just can't be put into two categories imo

I feel like the sentence “art should disturb the comforted and comfort the disturbed” is often used to undermine the artistic message being portrayed.

Some work is made with the purpose of disturbing the viewer; by putting the whole idea of art into two categories, I feel like it does go against the purpose of art. Art can be anything and can mean anything.

Along with that, the entire comforted vs. disturbed idea really doesn't mean anything. A major point in art is to have others look at it and form their own opinion on what they are looking at. So there isn't really any one group that could be the 'disturb' and the 'comforted.'

I do not think art holds any objectives outside of a creator stating things on art they themselves have made.
It's what makes art so special!

I would say that to some people, there are objective STATEMENTS within art, but not of art itself. For example, you can state something like, "This art movement was very important" or something like "all art is political" and be at least 70% correct.
But that does not really mean you can apply those things to certain art pieces because of how objective individual works of art can be! Sort of like general group statements of people or animals.
Like how you can say something like "all wasps are about x size" and be mostly correct.

Does that make sense?? Its like a all rectangles are squares deal.

I think that debating absolute truths for what art should or shouldn't be doesn't add much to the conversation. What matters is talking about the impact art actually has on people

i personally think you're right, art per se is full of so many opportunities to express oneself in an individual manner and while it can, of course, disturb or comfort it can also do so much more, it all depends on the artist. i feel like this "universal truth" about art is no better than saying "art must be beautiful". it's just a different kind of expectation but as we can see the "art must be beautiful" stance has been challenged and disproved and so can be the "art must comfort/disturb"

I believe in that sentence, but i see it on this side of "must" like that it needs to produce a reaction and be kind of revel, as a person who's always finding himself disturb by some art, i find that really important because maybe i am too comfortable with things and i need to see a difference, same to people who are always disturb and needs the contrary and crave for comfort.
That's how i see it