New art meets mass customized hostile to him, and will always deal with this. It is not the people, by its very essence, and moreover, it is anti-national. Any thing, born of them, automatically calls a public curious sociological effect. The audience is divided into two parts, one part less, consists of people favorably inclined, the other, much larger, countless, keeps hostile. (Leave aside the whimsical breed "snobs.") So, art work like social force that creates the two antagonistic groups, shares a shapeless mass of the camp on two different people.
By what features distinguish these two castes? Every work of art causes variations: some like, others — no, some like less, other — more. Such a separation of inorganic nature, it is unprincipled. Blind caprice of our individual taste may place us among those amongst others. But in the case of a new arts division is happening on a deeper level than the whims of our individual taste. The point here is not that the majority of the public does not like a new thing, and the minority — like. The fact that most of the mass, simply do not understand it. The old geezer who attended the presentation "Ernani", is very well aware of the drama of Victor Hugo, and that's because they understood the drama did not like them. True to a certain type of aesthetic perception, they were disgusted with the new artistic values, which offered them a romantic.
"From a sociological point of view" for the new art, I think, is characterized by the fact that it divides the audience into two classes of people: those who understand it, and those who are not able to understand it. As if there are two varieties of the human species, one of which has a certain sense organ, and the other is deprived of it. New art, obviously, is not art for everyone, such as romantic art: the new art refers to a particularly gifted minority. Hence — the irritation in the mass. When someone does not like a work of art because it is clear that a person feels their "superiority" over it, and then there is no place irritation. But when the thing I do not like because it is not all clear, the person feels humiliated, begins vaguely suspect the inconsistency, inadequacy, which is trying to make indignant, furious self-assertion in the face of the product.
Barely born, young art makes a good bourgeois feel that way: good bourgeois, being unable to perceive the mysteries of art, blind and deaf to any selfless beauty. And it can not pass without consequences after hundreds of years of general appeasement of the masses and the exaltation of "the people." Accustomed to dominate all over, now weight felt insulted by this new art in their human "rights", for it is the privileged art, the art of sophisticated neural organization, the art of aristocratic instinct. Wherever there are young muse, mass chasing them.
During the half century the "people", claimed the mass to represent "all of society." Stravinsky's music or drama Pirandello produce sociological effect, forcing to think about it and try to understand what is a "people", whether it is just one element of the social structure, inert matter of the historical process, a minor component of existence. For its part, the new art has helped to make the "best" in knowledge of ourselves, to know each other amidst the gray crowd and learned to understand their purpose: to be in the minority and the majority of the fight.
The time is approaching when the society, from politics to the arts, and once again begins to take shape, as it should, in two orders, or rank — the Order and the Order of the outstanding people ordinary people. All of Europe's ills will be healed and cured by this new life-saving separation. Uncertain community, formless, chaotic, deprived inner structure association without sending a start — what existed in the past century and a half — no longer exist. Beneath the surface of the whole of modern life lies deepest and outrageous true false postulate real equality of people. In dealing with people at every turn convinced of the opposite, for each step of this is unfortunate blunder.
When the question is raised about the inequality of people in politics, in the form of inflamed passions come to mind, that is unlikely to have an opportune moment for his productions. Fortunately, the unity of the spirit of the time, which I mentioned above, allows easy, clearly stated in the emerging art of our times are the same symptoms and the same portents of moral reforms in politics overshadowed the baser passions.
Jose Ortega y Gasset "Dehumanization of Art"(1925)