Earlier quoted context omitted.
People go to museums to look at art. That's solely consumption that does not require being literate.
Going through a museum, and actively studying individual art deeply is a very different activity mentally, and much more stimulating, than scrolling through a feed passively 15 second clip after clip. It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art. Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram…
To you, yes. Not everyone is you though.
>It does actually take a sort of literacy to understand and appreciate art.
No it doesn't. It might add something (or nothing at all or detract from it) but if it is a hard requirement then it isn't art.
> Go talk to anyone about art who has spent a lot of time studying it and then talk to someone who just walks through the museum to take instagram pictures and you get very different answers about what they see.
Exactly, and both are equally correct in their view on the art pieces. I'm sorry but your post sound like one of those snob magazines that try to make art only something for the rich and well educated. It is neither. If anything money detracts from art and studying something too much can too. A young child can appreciate art by Leonardo da Vinci or Mr. Brainwash just as well as an art professor. They just appreciate it in different, equally correct, ways.