>At the same time, I think, we can't reise on
>that lewel of fulfilment (I hope it's the right
>word) of works(I mean technique level), which
>had achived artists of past. It's so, because
>the modern art became something that evertbody
>can do (or can try to do).
>
>(I recall Dushamp, one artist, who used
>"ready-made objects" in his works and it was 100
>years ago.)
>
>So, for example, the ability to create became
>more accessible for everybody (like other things
>in this world). This also show us that the ideas
>of our time influence on art,technique and
>methods we use in creating art.
>(This means, that technique and methods we use
>in creating art need to be more accesible for
>everybody - like Ballpoint Pens).

Looks like "Create" needs a re-defining...

"Ability to create" just like "ability to make babies"
became more accessible to people or did it?
Nothing has changed in my opinion, everyone now so as than had this ability to the fullest... they did not have ballpoint pens but there was enough sticks and sand... so as freedom of sex and birth control does not (in my opinion) "statisticaly" per gross population look any different from wars and rape by the occupation army (romans and whatnot) has been ballanced by higher death rate.

They did not have ballpoint pens but internet was not available either, so they had planty of time drawing on the sand...

Getting back to the point: the fact that everything is concedered art (by whoever) does not makes it art and the level of fulfillment is achievable if one searches for it and not paying much attention to the ignorance technical or mental.

Just imagine what good of a person will result from crossing a deliriouce alcoholic and a crak addicted syphilitic.

Botton line - the "act of creation" is not f.king - it is achieving this fulfilment you have mentioned.