>So “art” itself may disappear: art as Art, that old high thing. Which—unless, like me, you think we need a vessel for our inner life—is nothing much to mourn.<p>I think this essay would have been a lot more worthwhile if some effort was spent discussing why we may need a 'vessel for our inner life' and how art used to fill this role but is no longer as able. As a sociohistorical narrative, it seems too pointed and filled with unsubstantiated statements to be useful or interesting in and of itself.<p>Also, when critics discuss the democratization of "Art" like it's a new and threatening phenomenon, I can't help but think about all of the wonderful art that came out of folk music (of various traditions). There was a time, not so different than the time when Picasso and Joyce were making their Art, when a large percentage of the population played music in their small groups. This lead to an incredible flowering of music as the 20th century progressed, initially quite rooted in the folk traditions (including gospel music, vessels of our inner life indeed). People being people and having a wide range of talent, opportunity and motivation, it seems to me at least that democratization definitely did not prevent geniuses from creating their Art.<p>I suspect that what these writers are really lamenting is not the fall of Art or of Man but of Critic, as social media ratings threaten their revenue stream.<p>edit: forgot a 'not'