In the last thirty years, the history of art has been dominated by the market of art; artwork was a commodity, and it was subjected to the laws of free market. This led to a general decadence of art, and to very discussed artists, such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. Of course, this is another consequence of the spread of neoliberism following Thatcher and Reagan political attack to the left - 60's and 70's artists were almost unfailingly leftists - but art has always been related to money, since artworks are actually luxury commodities, with a monetary value not different from jewels and gold; and artist often have been very rich and, in the case of Michelangelo, even greedy. But I believe that in the late XX century decadence of art another, apparently secondary but determinant factor plays a major role. In the golden era of avant-guards innovative artists were discovered and sponsored mainly by intelligent amateurs, often rich capitalists with a passion for art. For instance, impressionism was firs recognized by rich people with a non-professional interest in art, and the largest collections - that of Ermitage for instance - have been gathered by such amateurs. These amateurs were guided by their taste and instinct, and brought into the market of art the love for risk and innovation typical of intelligent entrepreneurs (at least until a few decades ago). Love for art was usually not distinct from love for risky but profitable investments.
In the late XX century, in the era of the market of art, buyers spend their money following neither their taste nor the expectation of large returns, but following the advice of experts often with an academic formation. And it is well known since at least the satire of Gargantua and Pantagruel that academicians are, with few exceptions, conformists, do not like risk, cannot see true innovation, pedantic and above all have a love for uninfluential details. In a word, the art of late XXth century is not the art of market - it has always been so - but the art of academic commonplace.
1 commento:
Ciao "Hans", sono d'accordo con te sulla banalità dei contenuti dell'arte recente, l'errore più frequente che si commette però, è quello di scambiare il contenuto con il linguaggio, che invece l'arte cosiddetta contemporanea possiede, con il pregio di una assoluta libertà a vantaggio dei contenuti stessi qualora ce ne fossero nelle menti degli artisti e non solo. Il mercato? Il mercato non è solo l'arte oggi, è dio, lo stato, la famiglia, le amicizie, ogni cosa è inglobata nel pantheon del grande tiranno, il mercato. Per quel che concerne il rischio, ti assicuro che nessuno ne corre più di rischi, tanto meno nel mondo dell'arte, e chi perde dei soldi dentro questo sistema è solo meno scaltro di quello che ne ha "guadagnati".
Posta un commento