The problem is, we're not talking about pure art here. Dinofarm Games employs artists, but at the end of the day it is a company that needs to make a profit. I'm sure they would love to be able to make art all day and not care about the audience, but they need to sell copies to pay for a roof over their heads.
Modern art is about ideas, purity and form. Pollock chose to create a new form in plastic space that creates a sense of depth without traditional perspective tools. Is that the whole je ne sais quo? No, but I want to mirror that bit of your experience back to you.
Gallery art is its own thing, greatly divorced from "getting good at drawing" and "making art that speaks to a lot of people". Making art that you have to be a rarified aesthete to understand what simply doesn't appeal to all those peons is a route to making work that stupidly rich assholes can be persuaded makes them look like Important People Of Taste to own, especially when everyone knows that your last piece went for a very large number; it's investment games, status games, and probably no small amount of money-laundering.
In the case of commercial or commissioned art the answer is pretty clear. It's easy to think all the famous paintings and such in art history were created for the artist by the artist, but this is not always the case -- most of the famous artists of the past were beholden to the patronage system, and much of their prized work was created for their patrons. I've always desired to create art only for me, and so this realization paints a bleak picture of reality that makes me somewhat uncomfortable.
I don't have a better metaphor, but the artist is a sheepdog. The audience are sheep. The artist's ideas are the pen. Even if going to the pen is great, the artist still needs to connect with the audience to get them there. He can't just stand next to the pen and think wow, I'm so clever.
Which sheep and how many does the sheepdog want? The art literati? To have prints of their work in every home? Investors who will give them a storied name and convince people that the work has a je ne se quoi?
Is it the artists responsibility to make art for his audience? Or is it the audience's responsibility to try and understand the artist and his motivations?
I think these questions explain a lot about the art world that regular folks simply don't understand, like the kind of abstract, "modern" art that is often derided for appearing low-effort. Indeed I have been to galleries and exhibitions filled with what appears to be genuinely low-effort cash-ins and been chided for disliking it because it appeared to lack quality. It is very difficult to differentiate between the Pollocks/Warhols and said low-effort cash-ins, and articulating what separates them from the rest is something I struggle with. All I can really say to that effect is that the je ne sais quoi has something to do with the feeling of zen that only comes from a mature and developed sense of composition -- in that Pollock chose his "sloppy" aesthetic when he could have chosen to follow the precient style -- that many amateurs and pretenders simply lack.