The term "accessible" is a buzzword that I use somewhat frequently in
my work and I think that it's pretty much BS.  And, your idea that a
cogent argument can be made that much of the best art is barely
accessible is completely BS.  Any such argument is based on an
absolute misunderstanding of what art is.

Fundamentally, whether performing or fine, art is a means of
expression and communication.  Inaccessibility blocks the ability to
transmit expression and to communicate.  Thus, if art is inaccessible,
it is not effectively serving its purpose and cannot be called good.

Accessible is a word that we use to allay the fears of people wary of
challenging themselves and their audiences.

--Matt K.

On 10/26/07, Marc Chrusch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> One can make a very cogent argument that much of the best art is indeed
> barely accessible, at least at first encounter. But it kind of falls
> flat when you're trying to convince people of the enjoyment offered
> by opera. Sorry kids, we'll have to disagree on this one.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit