Dissertations notes all in a Jumble

I'd like to investigate the snobbery of fine art. Fine Art is a very odd distinction, for an area that is supposed to be creative and open there is an awful lot of closed mindedness, snobbery is inate in the very name, Fine Art rather than Craft. Somehow the name means 'un-applied' art, art for its own sake, in its own right. For years it meant painting and sculpture and then later it grew to include conceptual art such as performance art and video.

What is strange is the gradual edging out of certain genres. For some reason the figurative work has been 'relegated' by many to craft or illustration

There has been a split in the artworld into a traditionalist supposedly commercial area and a contemporary 'edgy' area.

Painting has been stranded between the two it seems a painting must not actually have taken any craft to be considered Art, well not from the credited artist. And if it does then it may grudgingly be allowed if the work shocks. If your work does none of the above and only if you are old like Hockney or Lucien Freud and haven't had the decency to die, can you be considered a 'respectable' artist.

Why does the art world have such a problem with Charles Saatchi. Is it there own impotence and a self loathing that he brought British art into the late twentieth century from its cottage industry status constantly playing catch up to a dynamic New York post avant garde scene, and he did it by By buying and showing young British artists, while they were still championing elder statesmen and doddery Americans. The fact the nineties is dominated by art that was to his taste is not his 'fault' but his success if he had not put his money in was anyone else going to, did anyone else? Is what galls the critics of the time that he made a new art fashionable rather than the friends who they had been name dropping in 'all the right places' for years.

But was it Saatchi that made it Fashionable or was it that Saatchi was the Zeitgeist, he had been Thatchers Adman understanding what it took to catch the attention of modern masses. So is it surprising that his art that fit his taste in art caught the public imagination.

Some of the work may have been shocking but so was his own work such as the anti-smoking ads, shocking but hellishly effective.

Why is an advertisement not art?
The subliminals of adverts have to communicate to a wide market, but also to a target market.
Who are art subliminals communicating to?
What is the point of a subtle obscure message particularly if it only communicates to an exclusive market ( maybe that is the point)

I'm not saying art should not have subtlety but that it should not be all subtlety, the audience should not have to have contemporary art explained if they are from the same period as the work it should explain itself. If the work cannot get the attention, the artist or the art world should not blame the audience.

The differentiation between high art and low art is entirely artificial, there is no intrinsic reason one artform should survive by right. It is totally subjective, a matter of personal preference Lucien Freud is no more worthy than Jack Vettriano. Its like saying cricket, as much as I love it, is more important than football. I may prefer it, so to me it is, but there is majority that follow football. There is no point in me complaining about it, Football has the audience, I can choose to do something about it to Complexity is not necessarily a good thing Has art been marginalised because of a refusal to be accessible or to communicate with a mass audience ? Are complaints about supposed dumbing down of art just laments for the exclusivity of art . Based on art where the main market was an educated elite and an aspirational 'nouveau riche'.
Hence just a way of protecting its vested interests, by keeping the exclusive status symbol nature of owning Art.

Is the reason art has resisted being mainstream because art intellectuals fear for their careers , why should contemporary art need explaining, by its very nature art should be expressing its own meaning. I have a view that the only explanation an artist should give is a title and only if they want to, if art needs to explain itself then hasn't it failed. Maybe the purpose of art writing is like journalism to inform and to document ?
Why is art not mainstream along with the other creative media like music, film and TV, and books Who are the artists that the art world respects that are not regarded as High Art Lite, is there a lament for the romantic struggling artist figure who only makes it famous at his death or in his late years? The career model is not very appealing, it only allows for the gifted amateur which is a lovely ideal the pure and uncorrupted artist. But like amateur sport it completely prohibits the working class, and the only ones who prosper are those with independent means or rich parents as they are known. There are those who work as lecturers and tutors but this is restricted to those who can afford the education either through privilege of money or being lucky enough to be born in the right country, and have the background that will allow them the freedom to do so.