I don't love Shakespeare, but I have a good working knowledge of his works, characters, plotlines, major quotes etc. Same for things like Chaucer (ugh "Canterbury Tales" was my Waterloo v. minoring in English) I call it the "Jeopardy" factor. I consider it a solid education to know enough about the who/what/when/how/why and that having some personal love for the Bard or or literary greats isn't necessary. Great if you like it, but you're not a lesser academic if you don't.
Same for all subjective areas of arts - you don't have to love abstract painting to have a solid grasp on the Abstract Expressionist movement. It's more essential to know about the school of work - why it was important in the context of art history etc than it is to love Kandinsky (spelling?)
You can appreciate the academic nature of these things without personally adoring them.
I suppose that's the real issue for me. I don't care about any of that stuff. I can't summon enough interest in it to even retain what I learn working with dd1. I suspect she already has a better grasp on art history than I do, just from a couple of books and a trip to the local art gallery. That stuff all goes in one ear (or eye) and out the other for me. I have very little ability to retain information/knowledge that doesn't interest me. And, I actually know more about both Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet, although I've never read or seen either of them, than I do about MacBeth or Taming of the Shrew, both of which I've read (and have also seen the movie version of the latter, with Elizabath Taylor). I've picked up a lot of Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet over the years, from references in books, movies, etc. I was interested in the books and movies in question, so the information stuck in my head.
I think maybe I'm unusually challenged at retaining things that don't interest me. I've never been very good at it.