Are We Too Elitist About Art?

Question:

Are We Too Elitist About Art?

Okay basically i need to do a presentation discussing the question "Are We Too Elitist About Art?" For my A Level Course. I was just wondering if anyone could provide a list of brief points i could discuss. Keep it short i can elaborate on them myself thanks. :)

Additional Details

3 days ago
Oh OK my Bad, By "We" i think it means just the global community in general

3 days ago
Oh and to the guy who told me to "stop pinching other peoples ideas" I understand that the way i wrote my question seems if i'm being a bit lazy. Well in truth i probably am but the main reason is i'm finding it hard to find pieces of research about the matter and am looking for someone experienced in art to give me a few pointers. So Sorry

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: 3 days ago
Oh OK my Bad, By "We" i think it means just the global community in general3 days ago
Oh and to the guy who told me to "stop pinching other peoples ideas" I understand that the way i wrote my question seems if i'm being a bit lazy. Well in truth i probably am but the main reason is i'm finding it hard to find pieces of research about the matter and am looking for someone experienced in art to give me a few pointers. So Sorry Defining we may be a big part of you presentation! I think average people have varying opinions about art but generally accept things as good art that "Real Artists" scoff at.

I was in a gallery recently and mentioned Thomas Kincaid - I love his paintings. Needless to say the gallery owner had little good to say about his so called art.

I think contrasting the average person view of good art (Thomas Kincaid) versus the Elitist Artists view (Kincaid is bad) would be a good one to explore.

I hope this helps :) Who's "we"? Proper art should be accessible to everyone. Some of it may appear elitist as people have not been educated about its meanings. Or some of it may have elitist connotations. Art is in the eye of the beholder, innit? Don't you think that part of the problem is that art sales require a certain elite status?

The difference between a $800 painting and a $20,000 painting is not always based on quality - it's part of the star system that is rampant in capitalism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see art-for-art's-sake as coming just from artists. It is built into the system.

Look how the galleries which used to be in SoHo moved to Chelsea. It wasn't
just rent increases - it was partially an escape from the looky-loos who mocked the work. Do it yourself and stop pinching ideas off other people. I don't like the response about "proper art." That term, alone suggest an elitist standard that hints at the idea that only art that is accessible and understandable by the masses is "correct."

Anytime anyone suggests that art must adhere to ANY kind of standarts, moral, esthetic, contextural, or otherwise, it makes your "elitist" statement ring true. For me, and I think many fellow artists will agree, art must reach each individual it its own way. What appeals to one person may not, to another. Some commercail successes in the arts, manage to reach a broad audience. There would be certain art "elitists" who might question the esthetic value of ANYTHING with broad appeal. Within that facet of the art community, this, clearly would translate to elitism.

I think of the artist, Thomas Kinkaide, who is known for being "a painter of light." His products appear, nearly everywhere, in the form of prints, souvenier coffee mugs, greeting cards and ceramic figurines. I, personally don't think much of his art, but I certainly envy his commercial success. I don't begrudge his marketing skills. What is NOT fair, is the criticism, thrown his way that his work is an example of "selling out," in favor of commercailism, over fine art. Some say he has prostituted his talent. What I say is that ALL artists who manage to sell their work would fall under that category. I include painters, illustrators, designers, writers, musicians dancers and the like. Most would agree that talent is no guarantee of success, and, those who do manage to make a living at their craft will display varying degrees of talent.

If one places an arbitrary limit on success, beyond which point he/she is thought to be a sellout, then the argument that we are "too elitist about art" is strong.

What rankles me is that such commercial success in any field other than the arts is lauded and encouraged. A lot of so called great art these days is based on the ability to mix talentlessness & controversy.Of course you only need a degree in art.Anything else to the snob art galleries is rubbish. What the heck is wrong with elitism?????

Or should everything be mediocre???? I don't think we are at all. I think we aren't elitist enough! If you want a counter argument for your presentation. If we were a little more selective none of the tripe in the tate modern would be called art. Yes..because art is talked about in a specialised language that the common inferior people cannot comprehend
eg I really like that artists use of space