There are two camps; those who want to know about a piece of art in terms of its story, its concept, its process, and those who do not. I am intrigued by the latter group. I am told that once the artist has explained how, where and when the artwork was created, there is nothing left open to interpretation. It leaves the viewer without a space to make up their own story or put their own metaphorical mark on it. I like that idea of the viewer wanting to create their own story but I also believe the viewer should have a choice.
When a first reaction to an artwork is filled with uncertainty, it could generate a curiosity to discover more about the artwork. Having access to the information often lays that unsettling feeling to rest. It could be disappointing to leave it unresolved. However it is important to mention that this is not a matter of trying to sway the viewer but it does enable them to understand their own reaction. On the other hand, choosing not to engage with the background knowledge can also be exciting. It remains a mystery and every time the viewer looks at the piece, there is a challenge to embrace.
From the artist's point of view, they might want to share the story because a piece of art is not just what you see. The idea came from somewhere else and evolved and as the artist made decisions along the way, the layers enrich the concept of what you are looking at.