You are free to dislike someone's work, but to say it makes no sense is an objective statement about communication. There is an abundance of sense in 2001.
Feynman
I find it hard to believe that Feynman would apply that argument to works like Kubrick's 2001. In all of Feynman's speaking, he never took the stance that something must be explained entirely in order to be interesting. Quite the opposite; Feynman was most interested in the things that hadn't yet been explained. The things that no one else could explain.
The reason he was interested in things that hadn't been explained yet is because he wanted to find explanations - not because there is an inherent advantage to their remaining opaque.
Kubrick is considered a great director because he forces the audience to confront film as something other, and perhaps more, than simply a narrative vehicle. A Kubrick film is a visual experience, more like a photograph or a painting than a novel, and almost any given still frame from 2001 is beautiful enough to frame it and put it on your wall. (It seems important here to note that Kubrick started as a photographer before becoming a filmmaker.) In most of his films, but especially 2001, Kubrick composes these striking images together with just enough of a narrative to form an emotional impression on the audience without making it too overly familiar.
Consider some of the themes of 2001. Do you really think it makes sense to convey those ideas in a way that isn't somewhat opaque? How do you convey the mystery and terror of genuinely mysterious and terrifying themes by turning them into commonplace intellectual concepts and making the audience fully comfortable with them?
2001 conveys more than you can simply put into words. That's why it's a film, not a novel. The novel offers a more literal interpretation of the events depicted, but I think Clarke himself would be the first to tell you they are separate works of art and should be evaluated as such.
I watched the movie, thought it was horrible and incomprehensible, read the book, then watched it again and enjoyed it - somewhat, I kept getting annoyed at how unwatchable it was without the book knowledge. But except for the warp scene the visuals were great.
And no, you absolutely do not need to read the book to have a clue as to what is happening in the film. As Ebert points out, you just need to sit back and watch, and enough will be revealed.
or are you speaking of something different?
It's a story first, and a work of art second.
I suppose some (lots?) of people like art that makes no sense, but not me.
And I think Ebert never mentions Arthur C. Clarke because Ebert didn't read the book either, and like everyone else has no clue what's happening in the film.
There is an actual story here. A great one, and Kubrick was unable (or unwilling) to actually include it in the movie.
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, do yourself a favor: Read the book first, then watch the movie.
In the book I read Arthur included a preface that explained how the book and movie were created together.