The institution of art professionals – museums, dealers, artists themselves, universities and critics – I am certain, deal with this problem. I presume some deal with it better than others. If I imagine being involved in one of these circles, I think I’d see my goals as: identifying or creating the art I want to see in the world. Some of that could be setting up criteria. That criteria could mean broadening what is considered art. As an artist, that may mean using a different medium to communicate a certain thought. As a university, that could mean promoting non-traditional works of art or classes. As a museum, that may translate into lectures about the breadth of art.

Conversely, criteria could be limited. A toaster is not art (unless it is transformed by place, medium, juxtaposition or something else we haven’t thought of yet). Graffiti tags are not art, but graffiti is. Paintings of flowers are not art, unless they look like vulvas. Dangerous, no?

If there is a philosophical, perhaps logical benefit to opening up the definition of art, there is then a requisite public relations problem. Another goal of the institution is to promote the value of art. That’s a tough goal to achieve when the end user doesn’t have the institutional context to differentiate his $14 toaster from the one in the museum.

There is another public perception problem that plays off those conundrums: the perceived inaccessibility of art. Rather than being groomed to like or dislike a work of art based on merits (which could be as simple as prettiness or as complex as how well it conveys statements about art itself), people have been groomed to believe that like or dislike of especially contemporary and modern art is directly proportional to their artistic perceptiveness, which to many translates as being ‘cultured’. It connotes pedigree and a certain position in society. I’m not sure, but perhaps the perception is that only the wealthy have time to art-gaze; only the wealthy can actually purchase works of art. None of that is true, by the way.

Generally, though this is changing, art is protected. It’s protected against damage, it is housed in safe museums, or even in private collections. It’s not something you come across as part of your day (you probably do, but may not recognize it outside of its home). These long-time constructs of art for the wealthy never made an about-face. They never succeeded in bringing art into everyday exposure, save the few famous paintings reproduced (and some would say diminished) on coffee mugs and hung on college dorm room walls.

With the proliferation of everything on the internet, and the greatly-increased accessibility to information and culture, the past 50-odd years would have been a perfect time for the institution to bring art to people, or bring people to art. The consumer culture makes a good breeding ground for it: if you can use reviews, comparative specs and brand knowledge to decide which vacuum to buy, then you can use critiques, a pinch of history and a dash of period-knowledge to decide what you, the individual think about a piece of art. Except just about the time that might have become a mainstream idea, the art institution turned introspective.

Introspection is just as much of a hindrance as the aristocratic tinge to the public accessibility of art. I think often the most challenging art for the average viewer is work that attempts to challenge the construct of the institution itself: to the non-institutional casual observer, that’s a very oblique perspective. Is it valuable to challenge the constructs of the institution? Of course! But that’s not the only important conversation to have.

To be perfectly clear, these are generalizations and trends I’ve observed. There are plenty of artists and art-lovers out there making the strides to be innovative yet accessible. In sum, I posit! that the institution does have a responsibility to bring art to people. Not all people, not all the time, but there are some simple changes they could make in curriculum, in advertising, in writing and in the kind and volume of interactions they have with people in everyday life, and not just within the museum walls.

…however. I feel that the institution does an adequate job of reaching out to all people. It can be better. But… Art is in the streets. Children feel capable of making art and have at least an entry level access to resources. It’s not the responsibility of anyone or any entity to storm into artless houses and shovel impressionism down their throats, or furtively hang Dalis in the bathrooms of the unappreciative. Most museums are free or very inexpensive for the breadth and quality of work they display. St. Louis alone has several coves of sculpture, murals, an arch, half a dozen museums and more galleries. Those who have not experienced art in this town simply don’t have a desire to, and that is something you can’t force upon anyone.

I guess the end argument is that the job of art of the people has begun, it just doesn’t know where to go next. I’d recommend targeting the reasons people don’t interact with art, rather than just plopping it down in front of them and hoping they… get it.