Sudhir makes an interesting observation that "today the art world has more connections, it's more in touch with the outside world and its not cut off -- than it used to be in the past. More people are interesting in taking art to the outside world" ... But is that really ground reality? Wasn't art - in its myriad forms - a seamless part of socio-cultural and economic aspects of our daily lives in the past as well? More so, because there wasn't any categorization of art as modern, post-modern or contemporary, and neither were there specific venues and exclusive spaces where art could be produced, understood and disseminated. We also didn't privilege certain art forms over others, especially crafts. Art had a universal venue - the streets, parlors, salons, public squares and other open spaces of a city. I am certainly not making a nostalgic reference to a "past" that was more accepting of art, but am questioning this notion that the art world today is much more open and accepting of the outside world. It's certainly more commercial and accepting of investments and buyers. However, the art world continues to evolve with its own set of rules, ruling families, star artists, cliques and privileged groups, where outsiders and the outside world is not allowed inside.