> Speaking as an artist, I can assure you that is exactly what art is about. Additionally: all people are the same, and have always been.

Fair enough. I suppose I can only speak for myself, and to a certain extent I can speak for other artists I know and have talked to about these sorts of things. So yes, please assume that everything here is a gross generalization. Also, please accept my apologies is this whole digression is off-topic. It is something of particular interest to me. If I should shut up, just let me know.

What you're talking about is a popular line of research for musicologists. The way art is used to reinforce social bonds is an important part of why people make art. That doesn't mean that, for artists, that is what art is "about." Any object once it's released into the ether will be used or misused as the people who encounter it see fit. I am responding to the notion that artists are craven elitists whose primary goal is to have their art acquired by rich people in order for them to show how much better they are than the plebes. Rich people do and have done that, but in my experience, if that layer enters into the creation of the art itself, it is generally the artist thinking, "how can I trick some dumb tasteless (bourgeois) rich person into giving me money so I can keep making art." Artists make art because they have to. If it were about getting a paycheck they would have gone into investment banking.

There are some people running around painting or playing a musical instrument who are not like this, who do it because they majored in it in school and some inertia keeps them doing it even though they have no inner drive and no commitment to producing authentic work. I've met them, and I've seen them play. Frequently they are stunning technicians, but I tend to take the 19th century Aestheticist view and say that what they produce is not usually art. Given a double-blind test, could I distinguish between those who have standards and those who don't? I don't know. Again, I like the old-fashioned view that what matters is the-thing-itself.

I am by no means suggesting that artists do not or should not take their audience into account. Art is not effective if it conveys nothing to anyone but the artist. Also, clearly, artists produce different work depending on whom it is for. Mozart, for instance, had a different style for his "public" works, such as symphonies and concertos, than in his music that is intended for connoisseurs, such as string quartets. I don't think this is the same as what you're talking about, though. Taking into account comprehension levels of your audience is part of the craft, and does not preclude producing an authentic product. It does not mean that aesthetic goals are secondary to financial ones.