Isn’t that how it was for the majority of history? Minus the AI crap anyway.
Still, the average person has incredible opportunity to see some of the very best art, as long as they live in or near a big city. Admission to most galleries or museums is not expensive at all.
The problem is that the average working class person doesn’t have a lot of time where they also have energy and don’t have to do chores. In that state, most people aren’t receptive for learning and enjoying culture. And it’s very understandable.
I think that has more to do with technology and the attention economy than anything else. Working class people used to read books a lot more than they do now. Then along came TV (aka the idiot box) to soak up those free hours. Now it’s all Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Netflix.
I doubt working class people spent their evenings reading high-brow books. Magazines, cheaper novels, things that don’t demand much mental investment after 8+ hours of work have drained your energy and left a little for chores.
Families that could live on a single income may have had more time, but if that has reduced, it may well because a single income often can’t sustain a whole family any more.
TV didn’t magically create a need for mindless entertainment. It may have supplanted other recreational activities, but it couldn’t replace e.g. meeting up for a drink and a nice chat unless the convenience of it outweighed the loss of social activity.
No, (though depends on your definition of art) but there’s a reason that public buildings (Churches, for instance) were often the best decorated with murals, frescoes, and statues.
Also within local communities there would be musicians and artisans who were known for their work.
That said, art did become more privatised once the 17th century rolled around. Obviously varied by geographic regions, etc. (e.g. Artist items (amongst other items of worth) were deliberately shared out by many American Indian groups in potlatches as acts of redistribution.)
