This is a huge topic that deserves its own blog, so I offer few answers, but hopefully some fodder. Via Edward_Winkleman, an open thread about “whether or not art should be special.” Winkleman quotes a commenter who is fed up with the US art collector scene, ostensibly having found “better opportunities” outside the US,

On a personal level I feel that the object-based model (artist makes object, collector buys object), leaves something away from the experience. Art needs to re-enter life and to affect people at large as gestures, as life choices, NOT just as objects. “Art” is too concentrated in the small confines of the artworld and let’s face it, not everyone will fit that mold. “Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.

Winkleman captures my ambivalence about this oft-repeated argument: art needs to be accessible, less elite, more inclusive, etc.

I’ve been hearing sentiments like this for some time…But somehow, I resist it. Not sure why. One knee-jerk (meaning, taking no time to consider seriously) answer would be that it’s not profitable, but very little about many of the projects we support are profitable, so I sincerely don’t think that’s it.

But the part of that statement I keep coming back to when thinking about it (and I do appreciate the commenter’s sharing it) is this:

“Art” needs to step out of its specialness and to re-enter the world as something more mundane.I’m truthfully not sure what that means.

If I can put words in his mouth, Winkleman goes on to describe how art is not, almost by definition, mundane. I’m inclined to agree with him. Art is distinct from mundane things and experiences,” or in other words “stuff that we take for granted”. I mean, who ever gushes to their friends about how they must go see the latest opera or gallery opening because of how “mundane and accessible” it was?

Of course mundane and accessible are two different things, and depending on how are we defining accessible – the issue is confused further. Do we mean accessible in the most literal sense of more people having more access to the arts in general? Then, congratulations! Never before in history have so many people had so much access to so much art via the wonders of reproductive technology. See Tyler Cowen’s “In Praise of Commercial Culture” for a thorough exploration of this topic.

Despite Walter Benjamin’s famous assertion that reproduction destroys the soul of art – I’d argue one would have to make a strong case against what I consider the clear advantage of technological advancement as far as accessibility is concerned. For example – what is being able to hear a high quality recording of a music performance, in the event that price, time, or location does not allow one access to the live performance  if not, accessibility?

If we mean accessibility as in “widespread comprehension and appreciation of art for art’s sake such that the majority of people can effectively commune with art,” then good luck, and I have more questions than answers there.

Winkleman continues,

And yet, I hear echoes…all the time. “Art is too elite. Art needs to be accessible to more people. Art should be something everyone can afford.” But that sounds like previous calls for wider television or internet access to my ear. That sounds like we’re attempting to reduce art to just another channel for information distribution, rather than some vessel for a hard-fought battle to transcend the mundane.

I don’t know…I guess I have enough mundaneness in my life already. Consider this an open thread on whether or not art should be special.