http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo_250X250.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Background_1024X576.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Banner_686X60.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Half-Banner_234X60.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo_250X250 http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Logo-Watermark_250X250.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Background_1024X576.jpg http://www.bigthink.com/adobe/Half-Banner-ALT_234X60.jpg Bigthink http://www.bigthink.com/feed/rss/comment/idea/8548 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 06:28:27 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.bigthink.com/arts-culture/art/8548 I would agree that art can be elitist, even art movements that were meant to be the antithesis of elitist, I find quite obtuse and incomprehensible, (the Fluxus movements come to mind here). I would, however, disagree that art has always been from the artist's soul. I believe that historically, art has actually not been a product of someone wanting to express himself, but rather an expression of aesthetic ideals of a government, academy, church, etc. It wasn't until we get into modernism (if you believe in "isms") that we see widespread forms of actual self-expression in the visual arts. Where art has become elitist, and I blame this mostly on some artists%u2026 Bigthink Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:31:22 +0100 http://www.bigthink.com/arts-culture/art/8548/#11923