"The content of art is shaped by local conditions: the culture in which it is born, its historical antecedents, the economic conditions of its production and reception, and references relevant to its time and place." (The Aesthetic Brain: How We Evolved to Desire Beauty and Enjoy Art, p. 184)
The psychologist James Cutting found that people prefer impressionist paintings just by being exposed to them. This is definitely true, based on my observations of people at museums looking at art. There's no intellectual prerequisite to looking at impressionist paintings; You can just stand in front of a painting and enjoy the open-air feeling, whereas the oppressive gravitas of painting from the 14th century is depressing to some people, as is the confounding feeling of Robert Morris scatter pieces.
Prejudice of conceptual art (as opposed to new experiences with conceptual art) can diminish its capacity for being enriching. There's a disconnect between the "I" and the "me" that is having a relationship with it, i.e. "'I'" don't like this because it's not "me'" (or "us"), and placed in a binary context, such as brand preferences, and the associated personal identifications: Either you're a 'Coke' person or a 'Pepsi' person. Identifying with the label of a particular kind of beverage influences our enjoyment of the taste, probably having to do with cross-wiring in the brain.
An enjoyment or appreciation of an artwork does not require a historical reference, but is tremendously powerful to cognition. All periods of art have histories, even those created last week. All art gathers an intention from "local conditions" even if there wasn't one to begin with. Both artists and viewers can appreciate the intent of something, and can appreciate it just for that alone, regardless of skill involved or aesthetics.
(One also has to keep in mind that photography made a de-skilling possible, yet allowed it still retain all the aesthetic power.)