I've never found an English-writing playwright's work to be an "acquired taste." You might have a playwright, like August Wilson, who writes one play a lot better than he has another, and that is typical for playwrights though there have been a few that couldn't write a bad play.
I have, however, found different forms of theatre to be "acquired tastes." Different kinds of Asian theatre such as Noh or Beijing Opera are so remote to Western daily life, theatre and musical traditions that there is a period of becoming familiar to be able to fully comprehend and appreciate them.
The absurdist playwrights who are good require two things for the play to be received. Actors who understand the absurd/satire and an audience who understands it likewise. Satire is the most difficult type of comedy to write, and generally a playwright's either got it or not. If the playwright doesn't internally possess a satirical life outlook it doesn't work. Absurdism and satire I believe only can be written by the personality that lives life with that view by its nature, in the same way it is said that a poet is born, not made.
I do not believe you can teach someone or that someone can learn how to write satire. If you don't automatically look at the world in that way, the writing will be "off" or stilted. And poorly crafted satire is awful, just falls flat. Satire is not a string of one-liners. It is the artist looking at some aspect of life from the outside view and seeing how ridiculous/absurd/hypocritical it is and them communicating that in a very individual style.
A good satirical playwright is rare. We are very lucky to have one in Durang. He seems to me to be our top U.S. playwright though we have some other fine ones.
Caryl Churchill also has a very original style mixing the absurd with the fantastical as in Skriker or Far Away.
I just don't think the term "acquired taste" applies well to the work of playwrights except when that expression is used as a sarcasm to imply the playwright's work was lousy.