Art is dead, Long live Art

Art has always reflected the values and beliefs of the society in which it was created. As society evolves over time, so too does art, making it an integral part of our daily lives and surrounding us wherever we go. However, the notion of “art” often conjures up an elitist image, as if art were only intended for a select few who alone have the right to enjoy what ought to be a public and popular asset. Not all art forms are impacted in the same way by what I will term the “elitisation” of art. Painting, sculpture and theater seem to suffer more acutely from this phenomenon than music or film, especially among youth. I do not aim to condemn our constantly evolving society nor an intellectual minority. My main goal is to demystify what we grandiosely call “Art”, which is ultimately just an expression of our changing society. Art must be democratized. Art must give way to art for art's sake, as it needs to be accessible to all. Some may argue art is inherently elitist because grasping its codes and messages requires extensive, sometimes arduous training. While fascinating, this specialized knowledge enables a distinct perspective on artworks and brings valuable insight. However, in my view, it is not imperative. Art has the unique ability to stir our emotions, sensations and perception of beauty. Art is deeply personal - it cannot be reduced to a series of rules and codes. And because art is personal and, above all, irrational, formal study is not required to appreciate a painting or sculpture. Therefore, while artistic education is always beneficial, it is not a prerequisite to appreciate a work of art. Art must also be democratized because it spurs development. Visiting a museum or attending the theater is not solely for sensory enjoyment. Art is a wonderful school of life. By engaging with art, we learn about ourselves, others and the world. Hence, art cannot possibly be the exclusive domain of an intellectual elite. To say art is not for you, that you do not understand it, that it is too expensive or time-consuming is to miss out on part of life itself. In my view, another facet of this issue is education. Does school sufficiently promote and celebrate art? Shouldn't we raise young people's awareness about diverse art forms as early as possible? Doesn't education, with its formative mission, have a role to play here? I believe the answer is yes. Early contact with art could greatly contribute to demystifying the art world. In most schools, music lessons, when not absent altogether, are very limited - rarely more than 2-3 hours per week - and often poorly tailored to students' expectations. Extracurricular activities like museum visits or theater outings are infrequent and often poorly conceived and promoted. There is too much emphasis on technical minutiae, which is not always essential. I am by no means disparaging artists' work and technical mastery, which certainly warrant recognition, but simply underscoring that there are multiple ways to approach art. Focusing solely on technical details is undoubtedly the best way to put off children. Allowing time for individual impressions, discussing how the art makes them feel and providing context if possible seems a more prudent tactic, at least for young children. Democratizing art will require sustained effort starting with the young. Thus, demystifying art is a choice for the future. A gentle way to reshape society by transforming mindsets. When we talk to teenagers, the future of our society, we see that pricing can reinforce notions of elitism. I will use movie ticket prices as an example - they continue to rise. Now, some cinemas charge nearly 10 euros per ticket, without student discounts. Nearly double just a few years ago! However, as I said, film and music are less affected by “elitization”. This is surely because of student discounts in cinemas and advantageous music subscriptions. Music is even simpler since illegal downloading provides vast quantities of music at no cost. Concert prices, while not always cheap, are more readily accepted. It is more acceptable to spend 50 euros to see your idol than 15 euros to be cooped up in a theater - simply human nature. Painting and sculpture are trickier - the perception they are elite arts can stem from the astronomical sums some works fetch. These mind-boggling figures are incomprehensible to most, leading to the assumption they have no right to engage with this art. Theater's issue is not ticket prices but competition with film, which seems far more enticing. Lowering cinema and music prices could increase accessibility. Those who would protest this further erodes artists' already meager profits, I simply say lowering music prices could curb piracy, minimizing financial impact. State subsidies for artists could also be considered. For painting and sculpture, the problem seems deeper - sufficiently lowering prices of masterworks is likely impossible. The solution would be free or highly affordable museum access. In summary, we must demystify art because it belongs to all - believing it is just for an elite few is misguided. New forms like graffiti and pop art prove this. Art fosters a unique sensibility and maturity only it can provide, so must be accessible to all. Broadly, I believe art can improve society and mindsets if made available to many. I do not pretend I alone can fundamentally transform the world, but contributing to a cause dear to me seems vital. © Gerard Van Weyenbergh