Source: An Interview With David Foster Wallace, by Larry McCaffery
[David Foster Wallace's answer to Question #2] ...But now realize that tv and popular film and most kinds of “low” art—which just means art whose primary aim is to make money—is lucrative precisely because it recognizes that audiences prefer 100 percent pleasure to the reality that tends to be 49 percent pleasure and 51 percent pain. Whereas “serious” art, which is not primarily about getting money out of you, is more apt to make you uncomfortable, or to force you to work hard to access its pleasures, the same way that in real life true pleasure is usually a by-product of hard work and discomfort. So it’s hard for an art audience, especially a young one that’s been raised to expect art to be 100 percent pleasurable and to make that pleasure effortless, to read and appreciate serious fiction. That’s not good. The problem isn’t that today’s readership is “dumb,” I don’t think. Just that tv and the commercial-art culture’s trained it to be sort of lazy and childish in its expectations. But it makes trying to engage today’s readers both imaginatively and intellectually unprecedentedly hard.
1. How do you determine the right meaning ? Why not 'artistic audience'? My guesses:
2. Any audience, possibly lay or amateur with respect to art, who still cares about art.
3. An audience learned in art, who still cares about art.
4. An audience, about which we know nothing, for which the art was intended.
Obiter dictum: I lighted upon this article through reading this.