the biggest difference is, I guess, that there's no longer a distinction between high and folk art. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are of course other differences too, besides the blurring of this distinction. — Πετροκότσυφας

In what way is it unapproachable? Certainly, socially they do not exist in different worlds. — Πετροκότσυφας

If you want to define it musically, then you should be able to provide the distinct characteristics of each part of the dichotomy. — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't think that accurately describes all actual (and possible) experiences. — Πετροκότσυφας

Technology might have marred the experience for some, even the most, but there's nothing necessary in this. — Πετροκότσυφας

Nothing excludes the possibility that the majority of the rich and noble who had access to "high" art weren't attending simply because of the status it used to come with such attendance. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yeah. "Underground" acts, be it black metal bands, music concrete composers, drone ambient artists or whatever, have fans from all social classes. — Πετροκότσυφας

Also, there are people, irrespective of social class, who like both "underground" ("unapproachable") music and popular ("easy") music or art in general. I happen to be one of them. — Πετροκότσυφας

Atonality certainly is not a feature of all classical music (since all of it would count as high art), certainly not a feature of all high art. But even if it was, I doubt it would be sufficient or even necessary for the distinction. — Πετροκότσυφας

It means that technology does not inevitably dictates how closely you're going to experience art. — Πετροκότσυφας

I would guess that in pre-modern times, someone like Mondrian would still be the exception. I would also guess that most artists who used to produce high art back then, were schooled and exposed to other high art as well as patronaged to do it. Also, it's possible that avant-garde art was mostly viewed as low art or no art at all by the high art intelligentsia of those times. It seems to me that to be an avant-gardist and to be considered high-art at the same time, became far more possible during late modernity (or post-modernity, if you want). — Πετροκότσυφας

If art is the act of creative self-expression, then globalization has no impact, it remains the same. — Rich

Whereas in the past, those with money decided what was art and what would be displayed in their museums (as a form of propaganda and marketing), now pretty much anyone can share their art and have it viewed. — Rich

But I'm arguing that the social and psychological pressures of a globalized world do affect our ability to be creative. — Noble Dust

The art world is still run by old money. Everyone can share their art, but a lot of it sucks. Which is worse, a democratized internet of art, mired with a lot of mediocre art, or a gate-keeping artistic intelligensia? — Noble Dust

There are always pressures, no matter what. One can minimize pressures as best they can and get on with their art. Pressures to avoid may be to please, to make money, to emulate, to do better, etc. — Rich

Art is not to please others but to express oneself. — Rich

For example, when someone notices that he does not pay enough attention to the art he consumes, because he consumes vast amounts of it, he can make a decision to train himself to stop that, consume less art and pay more attention to it. — Πετροκότσυφας

I addressed that quote in relation to high art, which you earlier said was the theme of your OP. How does the answer you quoted not address Mondrian's experience in the context of high art in pre-modern and modern times? — Πετροκότσυφας

So you don't think the ubiquity of art in the internet age changes anything about our consumption and experience of art? — Noble Dust

Before the internet age, art was, in a sense, rare. It was rare in the sense that you had to travel to an art museum or a concert hall to experience it. It was possible to be a fan of music, or even a composer or performer yourself, and only get the chance to see your favorite orchestral pieces performed maybe a few times in your life. And to know that that piece was one of your favorites, you had to have gone to see it without knowing whether you'd like it, and you also had to be familiar with enough other material to compare and to understand what you liked.

I disagree; it's natural to want to share art. — Noble Dust

Prior to the internet there were libraries and recorded music available in listening rooms. — Cavacava

There is literally nothing like standing in front of Guernica's encompassing massiveness. — Cavacava

If you need validation for your art, I am afraid all may be lost. — Rich

It is no longer yours, it becomes theirs. — Rich

... trips to museums and concert halls were much more special occasions than they are now, due to the ubiquity of art in the modern age. — Noble Dust