I'd guess at least some fine arts (composing classical or modernist orchestral music, modern abstract painting and sculpting) would also be pretty inaccessible to general population.
Or at least I think that'd be true.
(Well I used rock/jazz terms, since I am not familiar with classical music.)
If we had a specific, unique, and widely used word for the "artsy" free-expression type of creativity, I think the confusion many people express when you try to convince them that mathematics is a creative endeavour would be greatly diminished.
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english...
I do not find this to be the case. Art is full of structure, rules and logic. When artists "break" the rules, it usually means they been able to operate using underlying rules, and understand well the rules they break.
Yes, if only because many (if not most) don't want access. Been there, done that, got the medications to prove it.
Please, elaborate?
As another mathematician I've almost found the exact opposite. As soon as I mention math to an arts person they instantly start babbling about fractals and chaos and Fibonacci and all kinds of other vague pop-culture terms they've heard of but don't really understand. Artsy types almost seem to find math much more artistic than I do.
So there is this idea of different arts being more or less accessible to the general population.
As a Mathematician I've always identified as a creative person, yet struggle to convince "artsy" persons that what I do is creative. As soon as I utter the word math they convulse and shutter as if they were afflicted with a PTSD flashback. I try explaining what the idea involves and draw a diagram or three, but all they do is just nod and say "yeah, yup, okay.." Are the ideas of math that inaccessible to the general population when compared to a work of Art?