This argument is often made, and has been common since the 1960s. Many good essays have been written, and are worth reading, but in the end they can all be boiled down to this: popular arts have become somewhat more important and fine arts have become somewhat less important. Movies are still important, pop music is important, graphic design (of magazines and web sites and apps) is more important than it has ever been before. But the elite edge of art is less important to the public, in the ways mentioned here:
"A basic familiarity with the ideas of the leading artists and architects is no longer part of the essential cultural equipment of an informed citizen."
That doesn't mean that art has become irrelevant, only that certain kinds of art are less relevant, and other kinds of art are more relevant.
People change, and the culture changes. When I was a little kid, my mom would read the New York Times and she would clip out articles about what the great novelists were writing and what the great architects were building, and whether New Urbanism would rescue the suburbs. Nowadays, my mom reads the New York Times and she clips out articles about cloud computing, and she talks about whether the USA is investing enough to modernize its communication infrastructure.
"A basic familiarity with the ideas of the leading artists and architects is no longer part of the essential cultural equipment of an informed citizen."
That doesn't mean that art has become irrelevant, only that certain kinds of art are less relevant, and other kinds of art are more relevant.
People change, and the culture changes. When I was a little kid, my mom would read the New York Times and she would clip out articles about what the great novelists were writing and what the great architects were building, and whether New Urbanism would rescue the suburbs. Nowadays, my mom reads the New York Times and she clips out articles about cloud computing, and she talks about whether the USA is investing enough to modernize its communication infrastructure.