I have no idea what art is supposed to do, what it's best function is, but I'm pretty sure that art about art isn't appealing to people who don't actively care about or pursue art. If you are the type of person that makes art about art, you should accept the fact that not many people will be into what you're saying. I am of the feeling that the best art is art that speaks to humanity, that somehow communicates and resonates with some shared human part in all of us.
The thing that many dance artists forget, I think, is that what they are creating is a form of theater. And theater communicates. In fact, that's what it's all about, communication. Communication of thoughts, ideas, feelings, human to human, performer to audience and vice versa. A neurology conference is all about (and I'm guessing here since I've never been to one) sharing new ideas and technologies in the specified field of neurology. Of course, I'm not going to understand anything said at such a conference because I'm not in the field of neurology and I never got the invitation from the National Neurology Center sent out to people in the neurology world to come check out the cool new neurology news. I'm not their audience, and both I and they are fine with that I'm sure. Now, if you as an artist choose to cultivate such a specialized audience, that's also fine. But I don't see how an individual artists choices make all art and dance elitist.

I guess part of the thing is that I couldn't think of an artist who isn't, on some level, elitist. Maybe it is the form of their art, or the message, or the amount they charge to see them in concert. But, there is always a barrier that people have to willing to cross - aesthetic, intellectual or monetary.

I'm not sure I would say that we are elitist as much as I would say that the work we make is elitist.

Yea, that could be - I do like the distinction. There is also this notion that when one is elitist you want to exclude others, and I don't think most of us want that. But, we do exclude even if it is unintentional.

Daniel, I totally agree with you. Art, especially experimental art, is elitist. I wrote about this in my post "Responding to Your Audience": http://greatdance.com/movetheframe/2007/11/responding-to-your-audience.php, and I came to the same conclusion as Adrian, that experimental dance artists forget about communicating with their audiences. We tend to become navel gazers rather than sharers of experience. This makes for an exclusive group of participants, where only fellow members will understand what the artist is doing (or trying to do). Great post, and I applaud you for telling it like it is!

You forgot to mention bloggers. If you're a blogger, are you elitist? :-)

I have been thinking about this very idea for quite some time now. Elitists or not, the "popular ones" support the dance world.

Is there a system for the popular companies to "recommend" less mainstream, or elitist, artists?

Can the dance world adopt an Amazon.com recommendation system, or is this a stretch?

For example, if you like Rennie Harris, you might also like....

ideas?

That's an interesting comment, Jaki. Is any dance popular enough to carry other dance forms though? I wish! That's kind of what I try to do with my blog -- write about the ballroom and other kinds of dance on TV, as well as the performances I go see in NY, but I'm beginning to wonder how many people even care about the dance on TV -- whether the draw of those shows is not more about celebrity than the art of dance. Also, how about the term "esoteric"? "Elitist" sounds so nasty! :)