Shouting the name “Claude Monet” in a room full of people (except one filled with enthusiastic art history majors) would probably elicit one universal reaction. The artist’s name has practically become synonymous with the phrase “water lilies.”

Don’t worry if you’re currently picturing your personal favorite flower-filled canvas, since this is a logical conclusion. Monet painted 250 paintings of these flowers over the course of his lifetime, and works from his "Water Lilies" series can be found in almost every well known museum. There’s a reason why these paintings have become so identifiable and so iconic. So it isn’t a crime to call to mind one of Monet’s waterscapes when his name is mentioned in passing conversation.

But this narrow concept of his repertoire becomes a problem when Monet’s entire body of work is reduced to a single idea.

We see this type of consolidation happen to the most beloved artists of our time and prior. It has the effect of reducing everything—from artists to movements to entire cultures—into one quintessential image, one artwork that we have been led to believe is the summary of the whole.

Think of Ancient Egypt? You most likely think of the pyramids and King Tut’s tomb.

How about Van Gogh? Sunflowers and "Starry Night."

And Cubism? Pablo Picasso.

These associations aren’t wrong by any means, nor are they the only right answers. Egyptian art also spans amulets, hieroglyphics, and Akhenaten. In the same way, van Gogh is known for "Bedroom in Arles," and Cubism can mean Albert Gleizes.

Famous museums like the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum, and the MoMA have upwards of 100,000 works in storage or on display. But it is concerning when most of them are ignored in favor of the select works that are easily recognized by the public. The Louvre, in Paris, had 70,000 artworks on view in 2013, yet most of its popularity comes from the fact that they are the current home of the "Mona Lisa."

We need to break away from the concept that art is only good if it’s recognizable, and only recognizable because it’s good. It’s dangerous to fall into this way of thinking, especially when the standards for what makes a work of art “good” is almost completely personal and arbitrary. Something could be flawless and innovative from an art historical standpoint, but to the average viewer, it comes down to personal taste and emotional impact.

We are led to believe that seeing "Washington Crossing the Delaware"or Michelangelo’s "David" are only significant because of their position on some kind of “art bucket list," that you have to see them in order to gain credibility as an art lover.

There is nothing wrong with staring, awestruck, at so many works of art that have elicited the same reaction out of millions of visitors before you, though. Works like "Starry Night"or "Girl with a Pearl Earring" are considered masterpieces by many, including myself, but it doesn't mean you should linger before them just because you believe it’s required. We need to promote the idea that our favorite artwork does not need to be well known. You are allowed to like "Rouen Cathedral" more than "Water Lilies."It's better to have an individual and thus unique list of your favorite artworks so lists can overlap, without remaining identical.

I am always awestruck by the simple beauty of Monet’s "Water Lilies," currently on display at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, but just a few feet down the wall, I get teary-eyed at the beauty of Van Gogh’s largely unknown "Ravine."I love "Summer Night by the Beach,"yet still find myself gasping at the sight of John Singer Sargent’s famous "El Jaleo."

Next time you find yourself in a museum gallery, let yourself wander instead of hunting for those famous pieces you know. Listen to the art that calls to you and, sometimes, to you alone.