"The downfall of classical ideals made all men potential artists, and therefore bad artists. When art depended on solid construction and careful observance of rules, few could attempt to be artists, and a fair number of these were quite good. But when art, instead of being understood as creation, became merely an expression of feelings, then anyone could be an artists, because everyone has feelings."
> When art depended on solid construction and careful observance of rules, few could attempt to be artists,
That doesn't follow at all. If he means 'coincidentally, classicism coincided with the period of greatest social immobility', then he may have an arguable point, but I suspect he doesn't mean that.
>That doesn't follow at all.
You're going to have to elaborate. Simply saying "That doesn't follow" doesn't demonstrate that it doesn't follow.
Capitalism accelerates social progressivism in art though. Capitalism creates an audience and a purpose for mediocre art; namely, the acquisition of social and financial capital.
This presumes that the rich would have taste and thereby would "make" better artists though. There are going to be more bad artists without a patronage system just because there are more artists, not because patronage made them good.
I 100% agree OP but while the overall quality of art has gone down the variety has exploded. People still paint intricate paintings and amazing symphonies and they also create piles of horse shit and just say it's art but they're are diamonds among them.
Basically I wouldn't want to give up all the alt art that I enjoy and consider skillful and genuinely good and impassioned just to raise the overall quality of art.