inherent worth -- obscene prices

I’m so out of it, naive and unschooled, and don’t seem to know a thing about art. On the other hand, maybe I just don’t like rich people, question their values, and find myself mildly nauseated by their motives. It’s a bigotry formed from afar, since I don’t know any, and I’m invisible to them. We’ll never meet, but I do see their art. Art reveals quite a lot, can’t help it really, and the current market as reported in media, six figures and above, is a hideous cesspool of hardcore hustle and financial corruption, tax-fraud and insider manipulation. The ‘high-end’ art market has become little more than a ponzi-scheme soap bubble, apt to collapse in the moment something better comes along. Don’t be alarmed, I’m not trying to offend. I can say whatever I want, and they’ll never hear me. Rich people don’t listen.

These 10 Artists Broke into the Art Market Big Leagues in 2018 in Artsy Magazine, online

They could have all been grad students judging by the work alone, but something about their person -- their ethnic origin and circumstances, their gender and orientation, perhaps their brazen borrowing from other artists or invoking historical events or personages has made their work suddenly astoundingly expensive. ‘The painting was originally sold in 2013 from a summer show at New York’s Greene Naftali Gallery for just $20,000, making for a 2,900% increase in value in just five years,’ is the way they talk about art. No one is going to mention that on the front it’s little more than a totemic signature, easier to bid for, but not much to look at, little more than a threadbare gimmick.

In the end, it isn’t the art that offends, rather it’s the lifestyle it reveals, and it’s a barren, stark testimony. According to their art, the ultra-rich are frivolous and shallow, basing their investments on a hyped-up consensus that doesn’t really exist, and propping up a system of speculation and conjecture having nothing to do with art. Gigantic price tags on mediocre art are more about an appetite for elevated social status and competitive trophy hunting. Look outside, the world is changing, the human race is challenged, and that sort of lavish unsustainability may be going out of fashion soon.

Some say they want a revolution, but instead of street protests and barricades, let’s just change the art instead. What sort of art it will turn out to be will sort itself out, but let’s bring down the price to an attainable level, not cheap but affordable. Between four and low five figures there’s a lot of room for a lot of creativity, and enough for a productive artist to live on. It’s also a price range that puts serious, meaningful art up in middle class houses, art that’s seen everyday and lived with for years, art that elevates the conversation and broadens perception, and an art that expresses the real aspirations and concerns of real people living real lives.

socialism so smart -- sometimes

Socialists are generally well-meaning folks who seem to assume they know what’s best for everyone, and when it comes to public health and transportation, schools and state parks, we can all appreciate their efforts, but the free market is the realm of individual choice and expression, and socialists shouldn’t meddle. They don’t know everything. 

‘Cuba implementing law to restrict artists gradually’ from lex HL, dec 9

The law won’t stop anyone from painting, but it will restrict the work from being shown in public, even in private homes, and intends to fine and imprison artists if they try to sell their work without prior approval by a panel of ‘supervising inspectors.’ This is one terrible situation, an example of a state attempting mind-control by trying to limit and coerce artistic expression. One sentence toward the end of the article reveals a bias shared by ministers of culture everywhere. ‘Minister of Culture, Alpidio Alonso Grau defended the breadth of artistic expression in Cuba, which he said is “scarcely found where the market is the censor.” ‘

It’s such an odd phrase, ‘where the market is the censor,’ and I’m not sure what it means. It reveals a distrust of common people, a paternalistic disregard for what people attest they want by giving up something, even financially sacrificing, just to own it. Really? So, just who the fuck are you, mister minister of culture? Do you think you know best what should go up on the wall in Cuban homes? Do you imagine you are so wise as to know who the worthy artists are, and which ones should be ignored? Well, in case you ever want to defect, you can find a comfortable roost at the NEA, a gigantic national bureaucracy devoted to just that, choosing art for Americans. They think like you do.

Selling art is an anathema to the culture drones who assess and grade our art, and they cringe at the notion of popularity, especially among the common folk who happen to support their swell activities. While they live on public money, and even distribute it, they’re not keen on public tastes, preferring more progressive, conceptual forms of art, one assumes hoping to avoid public scrutiny, public awareness, and public concern. They should all defect to Cuba.

The market can sort art out without their help. Not only will the market sort it all out, it will make the art better, continuously, as a growing sophistication meets a more rewarded, more dedicated creativity emerging from studios, almost anywhere the rent is cheap. Socialists rise up, help us with health care and infrastructure, but don’t get carried away. Don’t suppose you can choose art for anyone, that’s personal, a matter of individual expression, and within the realm of the ‘free market,‘ and is, in fact, why it’s called ‘free.’