But, is art restricted to the artist in the real sense? The common belief is that artists are people with distinguished sensibilities. I believe that an artist's reaction (reflected in his work) is a result of the way his attributes (shaped by his surroundings) play it up. SO, in a way every visual art follows a group pattern. Though different in form & even content, the instinctive reaction brought out as a result of experiencing it, will be the same. It is this trigger point which makes me say that art is not random and though how unbelievable it may sound, (1) a piece can invoke the same reaction among people standing at the same emotional and intellectual plane (whichever gains significance in context of the work).
What determines the success of art? Absolute cannot exist here. If the weighted majority have a positive reaction (to be noted this may not be solely due to the work but its peripheries like the purpose, artist, date, choice of subject; but that will be a different point of discussion altogather), it can be defined as succesful. So, (2) success is a relative indicator.
Based on these two inferences, societies which have its members at relatively the same plane will tend to produce more succesful art and hence, art is more likely to flourish in these societies (It meant 'flourish' naturally and it is not valid for instances of incubation schemes like state patronage employed by our erstwhile ruling class). I would risk it by saying that in societies which have a clear majority vote gatherer (due to ideology - rare to get in todays times) or have adopted to a socialist rule (strictly out of choice, again rare to find in todays times), art is more conducive to exist and evolve.
P.S.: Political belief is taken as a loose proxy for one's intellectual choices. But can it?
