"The case for music can be most effective when presented at the highest level (which is not quantifiable with numbers or adjectives) and granted maximum accessibility"

Amen. This is certainly true of other fine arts as well. Given that maximum accessibility is imperative, how can people who head arts non-profits say things like that or support them when they charge exorbitant admissions fees that price out many people, particularly young people?

I'm reminded of a story the sculptor Martin Puryear tells about his childhood: He grew up in Washington, DC, a few blocks south of the National Mall. When he had free time (as kids do!) he wandered up to the Mall and made his way through a museum. He was able to do this because the museums were free and accessible.

As I look around New York, in particular, this is not even remotely the case. Non-profit managers should be working to make their offerings more accessible to a wider cross-section of the population, not less accessible (or only accessible to the middle classes and the tourist hordes).

The topic of accessibility is indeed the crux of the issue. Let me give you an example that just happened to me this month.

I am a professional artist who has been working diligently in the field for the last decade. I've shown in various cities around the nation, compiled a hefty resume, (yada, yada). I even had a solo show in my hometown's museum, which is quite substantial in the region in which I live.

Although I had been represented by galleries, I must confess that I got sick and tired of the whole system and last year decided to represent myself. I wanted to bring my work to an entirely different audience, not the typical "art-going" public. I also wanted my prices to go down in order to encompass a younger, more passionate audience.

Well, I had my first sell-out show this month. I placed my work in a coffee-shop--the same shop where I'd had my first show as a young art student. I couldn't believe the response. Because of the price scale, young people snapped up the pieces, and I was pleasantly shocked to see that even some young men purchased my most biting feminist works. It was even more flabbergasting because many of these people had never seen my work or heard of me--even though I had received ample newspaper coverage for ten years and had shown in the most prestigious galleries in the area. I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to converse with people who were just fired up about what they saw, in an environment devoid of cocktails and conversation that required an MFA to understand.

I make it my policy as an artist to communicate warmly and clearly with those who view my work. I believe it the job of my art to communicate, but I also encourage questions. So many people don't go into galleries and museums because they think they'll make an ignorant comment or that their opinion of the work will be looked down upon. I think artists have forgotten that a primary part of their job is to establish connection and clear communication with their audience. Abstract and mysterious art is great, but I expect an artist to be able to speak about it clearly and thoughtfully.

I think we also need to get art out of the designated "art area" of town. Let's get rid of some of the stuffiness. I live in a moderately sized city, and I think it's interesting to note that this coffee shop was only a couple blocks away from the chic galleries--yet these people had never seen my work.

How about an art piece in a WalMart parking lot? Or in the median of a freeway? I wonder if art would start becoming important in our society if it was something that we truly lived with, rather than something only to be approached in a rarified gallery or museum.