Artists are often unhappy with what the high-end art world produces today. The reason is simple.
Many iconic artworks like Damien Hirst’s dot paintings are repetitive and fail to hold an artist’s interest.
Some people assume artists create pieces for themselves and other artists, who they think would appreciate their work the most. Yet, in reality, artists and their opinions are rarely considered in today’s art market.
Instead, the primary audience for modern art is wealthy buyers. Artists tailor their creations to fit the preferences, social status, and beliefs of these elite collectors.
These buyers often have vast sums of disposable income. The art produced aims to flatter these affluent patrons while also subtly mocking them.
The premise is that artists produce works to “fleece” wealthy collectors, making the art itself secondary to the marketing behind it.
Maurizio Cattelan’s famous piece, “Comedian,” which is simply a banana taped to a wall, puzzles many artists.
They see it as a rehash of Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” from over a century ago. In art schools, similar ideas are often created by students experimenting with appropriation art.
Despite this, pieces like “Comedian” make sense within the game’s rules that the wealthy play in the exclusive art world. Such works reaffirm the notion that art is a status symbol and a competitive game.
Art within this context is highly dependent on its presentation.
For instance, if a banana taped to a wall wasn’t done by a renowned artist or displayed in a significant venue, it would be considered worthless. The fame and setting are crucial.
Paradoxically, art that gains value by challenging the market loses its worth if it ever breaks from this system.
The human struggle, often depicted in art, becomes irrelevant in pieces meant for the billionaire class. These buyers would rather not be reminded of the hardships faced by others.
Instead, the art they buy reinforces the divide between them and the rest of society.
The market’s demand for high-priced, easily transferrable art also impacts its quality.
Art needs to be a high-dollar, quickly movable commodity. If a piece eventually becomes worthless, it’s a loss only to those who couldn’t sell it in time.
Some of the most highly priced items at auction do have genuine artistic value, but many do not.
In this context, art becomes a placeholder for moving money and engaging in high-stakes trading.
For artists, this means designing their work to fit the market’s demands. While this boosts the market for a certain type of art, it kills the essence of genuine art, leading to the rise of superficial works masquerading as radical breakthroughs.
Contemporary artists often find themselves believing in their own hype.
They live in a world where subjective and often wild beliefs dominate. In today’s post-truth era, any idea can be as valid as another. So why not believe in the market-driven value of art?
According to the simplest view, art that fetches the highest price is the most valuable, reducing complex artistic worth to mere dollars.
Art needs to stand apart from money to have intrinsic value. By intertwining art’s value with monetary worth, it loses its unique importance.
The art world is stuck in a superficial understanding of art. It believes art made to impress the market is superior to art made for self-satisfaction or inherent goodness.
This results in the rise of art that’s more about making a point or strategic move than genuine creativity. Such art becomes fodder for debates rather than standing on its own merits.
Real art, however, doesn’t need contextual crutches to be valuable.
Works by artists like Chris Burden, Roxy Paine, and Andy Goldsworthy, using unconventional methods and materials, are still highly rewarding. Even mainstream artists like Christo and Jeanne Claude, James Turrell, and Yayoi Kusama create works that are both innovative and widely appreciated.
Yet, the art world is often enamored by pieces that are audacious, though sometimes lacking in skill or depth.
Martin Creed’s crumpled papers, for instance, might seem revolutionary at first but quickly lose their novelty. The badge of radicality needs constant renewal.
On the surface, some art may even come across as simplistic or silly. There’s a fine line between genius and nonsense.
Understanding and getting the “art joke” can be enjoyable. Being part of the inner circle brings satisfaction. However, falling for the same tricks repeatedly turns people into the punchlines, making the art itself a joke.
While the initial realization might seem clever, one eventually sees through the gimmicks.
Real versus superficial art remains a source of ongoing debate. In essence, art should transcend monetary value and outward appearances to capture a deeper, intrinsic worth. Removing art from the art-world vacuum and back into the realm of genuine creativity is a goal worth striving for.
