No. That is what is so weird about Fassbinder criticism. Many critics I have read (and even know) would agree with you: there is no requirement that art be uplifting.
And yet they go blood simple with RWF. I have often wondered if this demand for uplift masks other unease(s).
While I agree with Dennis to some extent that RWF is an acquired taste, he is not that far out of the mainstream. In fact, RWF married a Classical Hollywood sensibility with the art film movement of the 1970's. Tsai Ming-liang, Hou Hsiao-hsien, and Zhang Ke Jia are all more of an acquired taste than Fassbinder, but none have suffered a backlash the way RWF did.
RWF was just not the filmmaker people wanted him to be. Over at wsws, they reveiwed his work as it came out on video, and I find their misunderstandings useful.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/fass-a06.shtml
In part they write:
"Sympathy for the victim, without confidence that the victim can overcome his or her victimization, is the movie’s and its creator’s great failing. Fassbinder never entertains the belief, one is aware throughout, that the class of people for whom he feels great empathy can actually carry out a radical social transformation."
Which translates into: RWF won't be a cheerleader and wave his pom poms for us. Further on:
"It is outside the scope of this brief comment to discuss the problem, but clearly, Fassbinder’s growing cynicism helped weaken his art and send him to an early grave."
Cynical or realistric? Also, Fassbinder's early death and hard-living style are invoked -- the pathologies of the man become the failings of the art. Many people found the way Fassbinder conducted his life distasteful and transferred that distaste to his art.
And more:
"One must understand the problems as historical phenomena. This was more or less a closed book to Fassbinder."
That is just plain wrong on its face. See Thomas Elsaesser's excellent "Fassbinder's Germany: History, Identity, Subject." But Fassbinder was a maverick who did not live his life as society wanted and never made films that could be slotted into pre-ordained aesthetic/political categories.
But his talent was of such magnitude that his work could not be ignored even by those who were disturbed by it.
Brian