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.

an apology of arrogance

people seem to think that we should tolerate one another to get along, i partly agree with it: we should tolerate others, but not when they're close.

tolerance is an attitude that, instead of accepting people for what they are, ignores them and creates a distance between us all. we don't tolerate good things, only bad ones. who ever heard of tolerating love or friendship? we tolerate faults and bad stuff, and tolerating someone is creating a rift between them, as if they are bad and wrong and we should just ignore it.

arrogance, on the other side, is accepting the solipsistic view that our biology confines us to and, being aware of it, relating to other people as they are, with all their faults and annoyances. only by accepting our own arrogance and by accepting others as they truly are can we relate closely to others. the key word here is "accepting", a moment of letting ourselves open to others and letting them into our lives. only arrogance permits us that.