>I'll start by pointing out that I happily do stop at these galleries.
Fair; there's no sense arguing over taste. But you must admit that modern art is a lot less popular and accessible than older. (Side point: a lot of photography I see is very powerful and moving and also accessible. I would argue that photographers are the true heirs of renaissance artists and deserve more respect. But that's again a question of taste).
>I think this controversy is a very interesting one and I enjoy watching it-- but you have to be aware of the controversy for a lot of it to make sense. I posit that we should teach it because it's part of our culture and has been for decades.
That seems a bit circular, and worse, backwards. If it were truly part of our culture then people would understand and relate to it whether it was taught or not. If modern art in fact belongs to a small subculture, then it remains to be shown why we should be teaching it as opposed to, say, skateboarding (which is an expressive artform with a rich and complex culture around it - but can seem empty and meaningless to outsiders).
>On a more personal note, a lot of modern art is trash in the way that a lot of pre-modern art was too. But a lot of it also speaks to me, and I don't appreciate what I interpret as your weirdly simultaneously faux-populist and faux-elitist suggestion that I'm being insulted.
Maybe you don't get that feeling, but the GP is not unique in it. A lot of modern art and artists seem to look down on their audience; they're obtuse for its own sake, and dismiss critics as too stupid to get it. Whereas from the old masters I get a far more friendly vibe; they can be paternalistic, but there seems to be a desire to work on multiple levels, to offer something to improve even the most inexperienced or childish viewer, while providing more depth to those who want to appreciate it - but you can take as much or as little as you want.
>2. I dispute your implicit claim that high art ever had that tremendous an audience. In raw terms, it's actually larger today than it was a hundred years ago-- think about the number of people we educate today versus then.
It's interesting that you talk of "high art" because my understanding is the divide didn't really exist prior to about 1900. Composers once saw popularity as the measure of success, and would make efforts (e.g. piano arrangements) to make their work accessible to those who could not hear the "full" version. Likewise plays and even operas were popular forms, again aiming for the largest audience possible. Your point about raw numbers is true but I don't think particularly relevant.
>Which philosophers are you accusing of navel gazing? Perhaps we'll agree, perhaps not.
Satre is probably the greatest example, seemingly wilfully incomprehensible. The whole direction of recent philosophy - cultural relativism and postmodernism - seems not merely pointless but actively harmful, denying the obvious value of scientific truth and western civilization, and for what benefit?
>And who do you consider high-music? Again, perhaps we'll agree, perhaps not.
So restrict our attention to music using the classical orchestra. There are people composing popular works that I would expect to still be played many years from now - those making film and videogame soundtracks. But the establishment seems to look down on those, and indeed on anything that uses traditional harmony, tonality etc.
I think the common theme coming through here is that while older art could be difficult it never seemed wilfully so; the artist was always cooperating with the viewer, trying to raise them up. Modern art seems to see the viewer as competition, someone who must be tested to see if they're worthy. It reminds me of the bad old days of roleplaying, where DMs thought they were fighting against the players rather than telling a story with them.