"Highlights of next year's programme will include a look at two giants of the Russian avant-garde, Alexander Rodchenko and Lybov Popova. It is, perhaps, an auspicious choice when canny eyes in the arts fundraising world turn their attention to the Russian super-rich in search of donations."
Demographics and aesthetics is always incredibly interesting. Since the early 20th century a prominent gap between popular art and "high" art has been evident; one of the most fascinating aspects of constructivist art is the inherent oxymoron in how it was intended as art for the people, only the people didn't understand it. Functionalist and modernist architecture has been slaughtered in the popular consensus for being uninspiring and ugly in its simplicity, the grassroot proudly proclaims their distaste for art that consists of cubes, and they never read books either. This does not in any way make them "less worth" as they adore to criticise intellectuals of thinking, but the difference makes such an interesting study. Intellectualism is simply not comprehensible for some people, and the tastes of the people cannot be grasped by intellectuals. So let's leave it at this, why bother arguing over it? I for one think having an intellectual elite is healthy. It is not interesting to sit back and observe the mental languishing of mankind as it is constricted from unfolding its full potential.
If the Tate exhibits Rodchenko and Popova I'll be interested in travelling to London (granted this is the gallery in which they're showed), as I've never been to any denomination of Tate, despite having lived in the UK; how shameful.