Response to Zach's "Availability of Art"

Does the availability of art numb us to good art or does it end the snobbish and stuck up view of art that is only a select view can view it?

The availability of art is a double-edged sword, as is the case with almost every availability granted us homo sapiens today, where technology has flooded the masses with information to the point that we don't even process most of it; we couldn't if we tried, so voluminous is the eLibrary.

On the one hand, the fact that a person from Bombay is able to see masterfully rendered artifacts that (s)he would have never seen otherwise is a wonderful thing. The translation of great works of literature into hundreds of different languages is also wonderful. People are aesthetically "richer" in this day and age then ever before.

Or are they?

The sensory overload which every member of developed countries (,and most "undeveloped" countries as well,) deal with on a daily basis has desensitized us to great art. By this I mean that we have lost our ability to appreciate the extraordinary. When the extraordinary is accessible regularly and without effort, it becomes ordinary.

Beethoven's 4th (or 5th?) that is dubbed under every third car commercial that comes out, for instance; it was once a revered, honored piece of art, and has now been debased to the status of "jingle." This is a travesty, and one so common that it is accepted on a global scale.

Will the fact that I've seen the Eiffel Tower 800 times depicted in puzzles, posters, post cards, and legos lessen my wonder and awe when I actually see the structure in person? Probably not, but the fact that the possibility exists is a sad one.

I guess it boils down to this:

Which is more important?

A) A few people witnessing grandeur and mastery in person?
B) Many people experiencing works of art who would have otherwise not had the experience, but at the almost guarantee-able risk of a lesser aesthetic value?