This is a great question. Here is my way of thinking about art. It may be completely wrong, it is simply an explanation that helps in many situations.

Any explanation of art must say something about the brain.

Art is a stretching of our brains internal low level symbolic language.
With this language we create at least two detailed models of our universe which we can tour at will. Our brain is very sensitive to art, it automatically focuses our attention process to it in order to extend our power to represent and thus to think. A barren environment is one with little or no art, leading to less developed thinking processes. Each new element that is added to our symbolic language can cause a flurry of thinking about the many ways the new element could be used, a process called inspiration. Artists are inspired regularly. Art causes art. Art causes inspiration.

Extrapolating, (stretching) we can say;
1. The human form, face breasts etc are always art.
2. To a young child everything is art.
3. TV is an art extravaganza for a children.
4. Art ages-out once it is common to the recipient.
5. To an old person art is a less common experience.
6. Thus art to one person may not be art to another.
7. Art is not so mysterious, we can think it through.
8. High art is produced by artists who well understand the symbolic landscape their target culture.
Their art is stretching the symbolic language of their own intellect and may be beyond the understanding of the majority.
9. Artists can thus produce art for selective target groups by working relative to the target groups symbolic language experience.
10. Thus an artist’s art may not be art to that artist, but the artist knows that its art to the target group.
11. Art and our exposure to it is very important to our brains development.
12. Expensive art may have much or little art in it. Price has other more dominant dimensions.

There is much more to say but time has run out.

I think there are elements of both factors contributing to the elusive definition of art (the elitism of the Elite, and also the exploratory nature of art). The danger of trying to defeat the former is that you may kill the latter as well.

Karl, I think that you’re right, there were historically periods where great art was appreciated by the general public. Like for instance during the Italian Renaissance. But look at what was different then:
a.) There was no mass media – no movies, tv, newspapers or internet. Most people couldn’t read. Painting and sculpture were the only forms of culture or entertainment in town (well there were a few others, but you get the idea).
b.) Art was funded by the elite back then too, but what that meant was the Church, and rich patrons who were supporting the Church. Almost all art was religious, and was meant to instill religious awe in the minds of the illerate public.

I think a huge change occurred in the 19th century with the invention of photography. It took over many of the traditional functions of painting, and also gave artists an incredible new set of tools. If artists were going to keep being artists, they had to redefine what they were doing. It’s been a slippery slope since then.

I also think the ubiquity of movies and tv programming have, for better or worse, replaced most of the narrative functions of art (and of books too, I’m afraid). People go to those sources for their stories. If you consider them part of the larger set of “all art forms”, it’s pretty clear that some art (whatever you may think of it) is appreciated by the general public.

I don’t think you are right about “What is Art” is being answered by a more concentrated few than before. There has never been so many people involved in Art as there is right now. That is why it is so hard to tell what is Art these days, because so many people have an opinion and so many different kinds of artists make art. That is why you can go into a gallery and view anything from a video installation to a naturalistic romantic painting. The diversity has never been greater.

As for public spending, does it matter? The average Joe is being taxed to build roads, pump oil and make wars that should be of no interest to them either. Industrialized nations of the world allow the destruction of this planet’s climate and eco systems.

That means that the average joe is being taxed to allow the purchase and storage of art that is of no interest to them. Worse than that, the art purchased with the money is discussed in terms that seems specifically designed to exclude them.

This could have caused the art elite to direct taste toward the tastes of the average person (to get more money to spend), but it has gone the other way. Art needs to be wacky and not understandable to make it seem special enough to go on taking money from the people who are excluded from the discussion. The art establishment needs to be able to say ‘you will never understand, so trust us, and give us the money anyway.’ If questioned hard enough by the popular press they need to answer in language opaque enough to make people with more interesting things to do give up.

It is a sad fact that the very people who think that art in the Tate is a joke are those who are paying for it.