I am far from being an expert in entertainment consumer behaviorism, but my gut says it's a consequence of convenience, laziness, accessibility and perceived entertainment value -- oh, and Hollywood sizzle.

I think the biggest issue that I take into consideration with contemporary art is whether it will age well. Some contemporary pieces that I've bought more than ten years ago are in my attic because they've not stood the test of time. That Patrick Nagel serigraph that I was so proud of in the late '80s is a bit of an embarrassment to me now.

On the other hand, I've bought other pieces that I know I'll still be displaying twenty years from now. So I guess the question is, do we consider art "disposable", meaning that we discard it once it's no longer relevant to us? For some reason, I have a hard time throwing away a piece of art that I know took someone's care and time to produce. This leads me to be a more selective consumer.

And let's remember that most people have terrible taste, and would rather display a bad still life.

I'd put my money on a combination of two things. 1) Ease of ingestion. In other words, turn on and tune out. Plop yourself on a sofa, car seat or neighborhood metroplex and turn your brain off. Takes far less work when it's being piped to you. 2) Similar to number one but more internal: You typically don't have to think to 'get it'. The idea that the finer arts are more intellectual could expose a person to the idea that if they don't get it, they may feel stupid. What if they don't see the say thing that everyone else sees? Does that mean the arts are above them some how? Obviously not. The point often is not to see the same thing as everyone else. But I could see why people wouldn't seek out the opportunity to feel dumb assuming they just don't know any better.

Pop culture is designed to appeal to the masses. Therefore, it's (insert better word for 'dumbed-down' here) until it takes far less thought to enjoy. It's entry level. Jim, the art that you speak of is typically meant to engage you. The other stuff is meant to fill your time. So Kevin, when you site laziness, I'd better you're nearly 100% right.

Okay, I felt inclined to comment the comments. I agree with John that certain forms of art are post-postmodern in that they are entirely disposable. In fact, that is the power of a good deal of post-modern forms. Since Andy, we have been aware of the suggestive power of reproduction and the need for consumption and existential dissolution. Art now can be entirely one-off or mass-produced, but that needn't devalue the statement of a piece. I don't think this really plays into the equation for most people, unless they are either a philosopher interested in aesthetics or an artist with a capital "A".

I think the reality is closer to what Braden hinted at, namely that people are not used to forms of entertainment that require engagement. Immediate gratification is the paradigm we now find in our entertainment outlets. Art, especially more abstract varieties (read modern), require that the audience interpret and engage themselves. I don't want to get into a debate on the semantics behind aesthetical value here, but I do think that most casual art fans are not very sophisticated. I actually think that the opposite is true. Our culture celebrates naivety and ignorance (Paris Hilton et al). As TRICKY put it, "We all want to be naked and famous."

If you want huge crowds or adoring fans, make your subject matter sex and graphic violence. That is what seems to work across the board. Oh, and don't make any art that requires an intellect above the seventh grade.

Thank you for bearing my raging cynicism. That is all.

PS..

Jim we miss you.

Agreed gents... I think they are intimidated. Art has to be interpreted. That concept is foreign to many of the MTV pickled minds of today. They are used to fast edits and being told what they like in Arby's commercials. Why do they need to actually look and something and decide if they like it or God forbid, what it means?

these are great comments...

And, now that I'm thinking about it, I also wonder if the key is that visual art (as it is meant to be presented) isn't portable like music or movies or TV or literature. You can't take it home the same way. Live theatre and dance are in the same boat as the visual arts. And they are almost as low on the popularity list.

By the way, I'm not judging anybody because of their preferences. I'm just curious. I'm nobody to talk: I just got done watching "Cheaters" on the WB-4.

One thing that my wife and I try and do is take our kids to as many openings/festivals each year as we possibly can. We've always incorporated that into their upbringing, and while they are still very young, it will be interesting to see how it helps shape them in the long run. There's something very cool about an 8-year-old kid referring to art as 'fascinating'.

I think art is all about expression, whether it's an idea, creativity, a belief what ever. I can look at artistic expression and not agree with it but if it gets me to stop and think, then it has done it's job.

I don't in any way want to give the impression that that I am a total anarchist in anything… but the reality for me is I certainly approach being one in the area of the visual arts. What I mean by that is I have an extremely hard time pigeonholing in the visual arts. The range of expressions and the range of appreciations are too great to put boundaries on. Yet, I continually find, the hardest and most inflexible boundaries applied to the visual arts come from the visual arts community itself!

Unfortunately it's as if the visual arts community has drawn (okay… pun intended) a circle around itself and holds "non-members" of its community at-bay. Then, while contained in its own little circle, it wonders why individuals put outside the circle don't appreciate what goes on in the circle!

This alienation has occurred for so long that it seems most people have lost sight (pun again?) of the fact that every waking moment of their life is impacted some way by the visual arts. The visual arts community has been very successful in teaching people that they must visit here or there to be exposed to design, composition, lines, color, etc. and if they don't visit those places… well they must not be "informed".

Just like people live and breathe the pop culture in which they are immersed, they live and breathe in the expressions of visual art around them, but often aren't aware of it. Then those people get a "cold-shoulder" from the visual arts community because they like or dislike something they are told they should or shouldn't when they DO visit where they have been told to go!

All visual arts expressions should be free and considered valid. The other side to that coin is all interpretations of those expressions should be free and considered valid. The visual arts community should then brace its narcissistic ego for the inevitable interpretations that they won't prefer. Only then, when everyone is rightfully validated, will a greater participation between artists and patrons occur which should break the above mentioned circle.

One more thing… one should be wary of others who tell them what they "should".

I have to agree with some of Essex's points, in how this community is very closed off. I also hate to say that I don't think the contemporary arts community here tends to be very self-indulgent and does not do a very good job on the business side of things; i.e. marketing and sales of their product.

Another factor is each individual's taste. I refer to contemporary art in the same vein as what I call "Abstract", and am not a fan. This doesn't mean that I'm a troglodyte, but that it this style does not inspire a swell of feeling or something I would want to experience over and over again.

For example, I saw an abstract performance at Fringe this year and it was excruciating; no linear story, no real comprehensible character development, etc. The most disappointing part was when I later approached a few involved parties to have them explain what it was about, because I truly wanted to comprehend, they simply thumbed their collective noses up at me for "not being worldly enough to grasp the obvious" My reaction was probably much like others would be... "F*&# you and your "contemporary art!"

Cheers!

Essex, artists are definitely elitist at times and there is a learning curve associated with the art world. This is true of any area of discourse. The best example is technology. I may tell people I write ActionScript, do CSS and Markup and enjoy interactive new media, but if they haven't read, they won't know what I'm talking about.

The same runs true in any artistic medium. It does breed a certain tribal mentality among differing disciplines. Despite this, it is actually this discursiveness that makes appreciation of the arts so important:

It provides a new way of describing the world in ever more precise language and conception.

Anyone got any actual ideas for teaching artists to promote and open-up their work to wider audiences and for getting people to seek out and appreciate something less accessible than their usual Fall Lineup lifestyle?

I'll start with a bad one based on university life:

-A ($insert_reward) for presenting a ticket stub from a recital, concert or gallery opening.

I think some interesting things came out in a couple of the recent responses.

Essex said he felt the visual arts community "holds 'non-members' at bay" and actively alienates people by giving them a "cold-shoulder" when they visit.

Could we hear about a few specific examples of when and where this happens in our city?

I wonder where Essex has been going. The Harrison Center for the Arts on the near northside has to be the most welcoming place for anyone of any age or background to experience art. The same is true with the Murphy Art Center and the galleries in Fountain Square. I'd suggest visiting those places on a First Friday. I don't think a cold shoulder is to be found.

It sounded also like Essex was saying that an artist or person from the visual arts community has said an opinion on art that Essex expressed was shot down or considered wrong. Again, I'd like to know who is doing that. Whoever they are, they're the exception not the rule from my experience.

IndyCurmudgeon also brings up some other good stuff worth responding to...

Just to make what we're talking about here clearer, contemporary art isn't abstract by nature. It is just art made by living artists. A lot of it is very straightforward. But often contemporary artists (at least good ones, in my view) are working to do something new or different than what has been done over and over and over before.

So that gives us some challenges. Yeah challenges!

The same is true with contemporary theater. So the show IndyCurmudgeon saw that didn't have all of the standard conventions we're used to probably has a lot in common with contemporary art. Because writers and artists today often choose to move away from what we expect in order to give us something surprising. That's a worthy experiment.

But it's too bad that whoever IndyCurmudgeon talked to after the show didn't at least take the time to maybe explain that, while the show didn't have a typical "point" or "meaning" it was trying to do something new and take chances -- something central to what the Fringe is about.

It's too bad that they weren't able to say that the show -- and I'm just guessing here -- wasn't about character or story but about something else: maybe creating a feeling or about the images on stage or about the people and how they moved or interacted.

It's too bad they weren't able to say that maybe their show was representing life more the way it is -- characters don't really develop before our eyes (especially in less than an hour) and we don't really experience life in a linear way if you stop to think about it.

So maybe what all of this is telling us is that people don't like visual art as much because they don't feel welcomed to it. Sure, the arts community could do a better job here and there with that. But I would suggest that there's more of a problem of people making themselves feel unwelcome because they don't like to be challenged.

While backtracking a bit in the thread, I did want to go on record as agreeing wholeheartedly with Jim's point about most contemporary art forms (visual, performance, etc.) being less portable than some of the more mainstream entertainment. I think the fact that you have to actively seek out contemporary art in our downloadable culture plays a large roll in its taking a backseat both to art that's stood the test of time (on a visual level) and other forms of contemporary entertainment.

I'm as guilty as sin on this one - I'm much more inclined to snag a book, download a song or a podcast, etc. so that I can enjoy my arts on the go. Taking time to engage myself (and my kids) in art, contemporary almost notwithstanding, is something I have to make a conscious effort to do. And there, folks, is the rub. Most people just aren't invested enough in the arts these days to make the effort (present company, as ever, excepted)

Part of the problem is not the art itself. I find some of the texts that are published in conjunction with contemporary art exhibits pretentious. One current show at the IMA is a great example of this. The "skid mark" tracings and paintings of Ingrid Calame is presented with a free brochure that is laden with obscure academic language. I read plenty of art books and I thought some of the writing in this brochure was helpful to understanding/enjoying the artwork---but mostly my reaction was "Yeah, right---they're tracings of skidmarks." I imagined what someone who never read any art criticism thought when they picked up a pamphlet about a show of skid mark tracings and encountered language along the lines of "post-structuralist recontextualizing of hyperappropriation". Maybe they were intrigued by the unfamiliar terms and went to a dictionary and developed a deeper understanding of modern art. And that would be a good thing. But I tend to think that happens rarely, if at all. Most likely the response was probably similar to mine. A couple of audible chuckles, one rolling of the eyes and a feeling of being unimpressed by the writing of the pamphlet, which frankly seems to be all about its author dazzling the reader with their knowledge of contemporary art and its trendy terms, instead of helping the viewer fully engage with the art on display. Or worse---it made them feel ignorant about contemporary art and therefore unwilling to give it a chance in future encounters.

The way is to get your children involved in art and music forms.Take them to museums.Me,I like American Indian Art,The Classics and Modern Art as well.The best art is in nature.Don't be lazy or hard on those that don't understand.Don't look down your nose at anyone.Be a teacher.You'd be suprised at what's possible.

I think it's the same problem as the fact that no one (as in the general public) reads poetry anymore except for other writers. Other artists and creative people dig contemporary art. But the general public is either turned off by it because they feel it's elitist (as mentioned by Essex) or they can't relate to it because they either prefer art that is purely asthetic or they want something with an obvious, concrete message.

Getting kids to appreciate it early on *is* probably the best way to change that trend.

And, yes, I agree that the fact that music and t.v. are more accessible and portable make them easier for mass consumption.

Probably why I rarely ever read art text, save for artist statements. And even those can be a bit much, at times.