Response to Mary's response to Misty

Has the evolution of art and societies over time brought art closer to reality, or has the reality of the artworks taken away the mystery of art?

I'm going to fuss about your question briefly, but that's okay, because it still serves as a wonderful prompt: the two aren't mutually exclusive... the evolution of art has in fact taken away the mystery of art. But how, you ask?

Before the advent of the automobile, traveling was an ordeal. Horses were involved, inns and stables and bandits and the like. If one wanted to travel to a museum to view a collection of art, the process involved was more expensive, more dangerous, and more time consuming.

If you are given an ice cream cone after walking 1/10th of a mile, as compared to running 2 miles, you're going to appreciate the ice cream cone much more after the run. Similarly, if you hop in your car and zip over to the Philadelphia Museum of Art at 76mph, as compared to taking a horse and buggy, you're going to arrive there at least five times as slow, and that's if you and your horse are feeling frisky.

When things are easily accessible, we as a society take them for granted; it is our nature. The fact that we can access an online gallery of Monet lessens the mystery, as you put it, turns it from a masterpiece into a novelty.

Does the fact that millions of people instead of thousands are able to access an art gallery make up for the fact that the "mystery" is gone? Quantity of experience over quality?