said by Kearnstd:I bet some of this is simply the fact that people do not have the money to travel. And the primary art museums are in cities like New York, Philly, etc.
I agree. The prices to get into the museums might be reasonable, but the transportation cost is the killer.
I don't think it's a matter of "what passes for art" because there isn't one single type of art and art is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. Performance art and the like are just one facet of the art world.
I think that folks are to some extent intimidated by the locales. How many are going to wander into an art gallery to look at the art there, without thinking that they are supposed to be at least a potential buyer? I also think that some of the large museums are overwhelming - there's just too much to take in all at once and too much real estate to cover. And a lot of times there's nowhere to perch if you just want to sit and take it all in slowly.
Slow Art is a good idea, but I think it only really will benefit most people if they have some context to put what they are seeing within. Staring a painting or a photograph is good if you can appreciate the technique, the historical and social context, and/or the idea behind the work. For example, I can stare at the images on the Shorpy site for a long time because I am fascinated by the looks into the past. To someone with no interest in that, staring at the image would probably be a waste of time. Just like a lot of primitive art wouldn't hold my interest though I can appreciate its historical significance.