My feeling is that luxury implies extravagance, which implies expense.
What I would like to do is rethink how we see Art. Why do we have to put art in the luxury category at all? If you are talking about art, and all that this encompasses, you are talking about literature, crafts, theater, cinema…..that, all of it, is art – is it not? I suppose that it might be better to own a few, good things, than several commercialized belongings. This is all theory and to be honest, I only half practice this, I have mugs from Target with bright colored commercial glaze (and I love them) and mugs from potters with glaze made from soda ash (and I love them as well).
Like this mug, from Kaitlyn Kelsey – it’s $7 and it’s beautifully handmade.
I make it a point not to own any commercial artwork (I groan at how we have butchered the beauty of Monet by cheapening it by printing millions of his works on shiny paper, it’s almost criminal, and to be found in every bank and library across the US) or prints, because there is nothing more empty looking than a poster, in my opinion.
Also you can find great artwork at just about any craft or art gathering, I’ve walked away with a few beauties for $20 or less, and let them grace my walls, please, rather than the commercialized print. This print of an original oil painting is by Nancy Cuevas, and it’s $5, and beautiful.
So to answer the question with a question – why not rethink “Art” instead of wondering if it is a luxury or not?