Democratization of Art-Good?

Although I do feel that there are some downfalls to the democratization of art, there are obvious good things about it too!

In the late 1800's and in the early 1900's, French salons became a big thing. I am not speaking of gatherings of people together to share art or music and refine intellectual ideas.  I am speaking to the large exhibitions where artworks where shown. It was a recent collection of paintings, and possibly drawings, that were chosen by the Academy.
In those French salons, it was possible that great artists were left out because they did not conform to the ideas of the Academy.  I think this could also be said of museums today.  Although there are many different art museums (contemporary, modern, etc) there is so much art that is not shown (some of it has to do with space, etc).
However, some of it also has to do with who and what is influencing art.  The thoughts and philosophies of the day influence what art is seen and considered good. I am truly interested and love contemporary art. But, the kind of contemporary art I long to see if almost never at a contemporary art museum. Sad, right?

Who decides what is considered "good art" anyway?

Technology and the internet have opened the doors to have more people express and promote their artistic talents and ambitions. Also, you no longer need to go to a large gallery or public/private museum to view amazing works, you can just view them on your computer (while there is still something to be said about seeing a work of art in person, it is amazing to have access to so many masterpieces).  There are many forums where one can view amazing contemporary and, for me, digital artworks.

I am tired of art that is a commentary of itself. I want something with substance. I want art that means something.  Although that is probably a topic for another day.

Until next time...