On Art

Art has, these past decades, suffered a major shift from an aesthetical/theoretical/technical identity to a market one. With large profile auctions, where works from known artists reach the thousands of dollars, art as become, more and more, a status symbol, available only to the richest and controlled by its market. In spite of this, there was always public-funded art, where young artists could find an entry point into the museum and gallery world and controversial ones could make sure they didn’t have to compromise their values and goals. It all changed with these last years’ crisis: with public funding for arts and culture being cut, the major financial resources for both artists and venues are private investors. If we take into account Ranciére’s concept that aesthetics are ideological and political, we can see the danger of a private funded art: only the artists that fit a certain theoretical and ideological narrative will be funded and young artists will find it more and more difficult to get into the art world. This commodification of art isn’t a new phenomena and it’s been discussed lengthy throughout the twentieth century, but now, with the gap between classes becoming wider and with the neoconservative economics limiting every country’s budget, art as a form of class struggle and as ideology must be revived. Public funding of art and culture must be assured, either by the government, either by public groups. With museums and art collections becoming privatized, it’s our past and our future that is at risk, and it’s now that we must act.