The above strategies, pre-sanctioned and accepted as readymade definitions of art, act as simple signifiers indicating to an audience / to investors without knowledge of art that what they are presented with belongs to the realm of art - by default. Accepted as standards for the production and judgment of art globally, they do not only determine and control art production and reception worldwide but censor, sideline and suppress any truly autonomous quest and innovation outside of their predefined remit.  

 

The questions "What is art?", "Is it art?", or "Can the boundary of art be extended?", have thus been abolished - and with them the true autonomy, self-determination and freedom of artist, art, art critic and audience. (Without the idea of a boundary -and without art history as a standard and measure-there is no freedom in art.)

 

The above questions are, according to the logic of this industry, obsolete. The spectacle of a now entirely arbitrary and literal 'Anything Goes' has replaced the quest for difference and the new. As the perpetual repetition of the ever same strategies and the absence of true difference have been accepted and imbibed by artists and critics alike, they are, logically, met with a near-total critical silence.

​

No single person or group has, of course, wilfully decided to design the above strategies. Instead, they have emerged, manifested and cemented themselves as the 'foundations' of contemporary art (and of art of the future) as the result of a kind of logic of 'natural' selection by success - where 'success' of an artwork is exclusively defined as market success. The economic model and logic have replaced culture.

 

No conscious knowledge of these strategies is required; they are (and must be) excessively simple and understood at a glance. 

​

Artists who work outside of the above strategies struggle to emerge in the public realm. The art professional pursuit of intellectual and complex work, developed slowly and with an understanding and knowledge of art history, concerned with the development and renewal of art in the continued and radical pursuit of the question "What is art?" in ever-changing circumstances, taking into account fundamental paradigm shifts over the last 150 years in science, is branded 'elitist' and is thus suppressed. Art today must be equated with nothing but everyday life in order for it to be 'democratic' - and for it to attract and entertain the masses.

 

Conversely, 'spicing a work up' by adding one of the above strategies (for example a controversial political theme) heightens -if not guarantees- one's chances of success. 

 

Artists who follow at least one, if not several, or even all of the above strategies reach outright obscene levels of success within the contemporary art world ( see Ai Wei Wei).

​

​

Only a handful of reactions to works following the strategies outlined above are possible :

​

1. "I like it."

2. "I don't like it."

3. "It reminds me of ... ."

4. "That's fun(ny) !"

5. "Wow! (That's huge!)"

​

and in response to works with socio-political content:

6. "That's interesting."

​

After that, there is simply nothing else to say.

Except for, maybe:

7. "Shall we have coffee now?"

​

The above reactions sum up the level and depth of cultural activities globally. The art market's strategies trap art in this form in the present, without any possibility of development or a sense of future. 

 

If we subtract all those works which follow the above strategies from the contemporary art world - WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH?

​

​

Exported and accepted globally, the above strategies represent a new form of colonialism contributing to the effacement of local cultures and identities worldwide. 

 

A dangerous vacuum is created in the public realm.

​

​

​

​

Strategy 1A and 1B are driven by the call for a democratisation of and political correctness in art, which is mirrored by the total obliteration of any distance between art and everyday life. 

 

(Pseudo-) democratisation of and political correctness in art are key forces which have made today's standardisation, homogenisation and infantilisation of artists, art and audience possible, and -paradoxically- undermine artistic autonomy, self-determination, and freedom. (For a detailed analysis of the anti-democratic impact of the (pseudo-)democratisation of the Culture Industry, fuelling populist/fascist tendencies and contributing to the rise of the far-right, click here.) 

​

​

Both, strategy 1 and 2 (except for 1C), demand works which function as 'click-bait', and are spread and perpetuated by the algorithmic logic of content promotion on the internet, which in itself proliferates the demand for non-complex, non-intellectual content. Thus a kind of 'Trumpism' of culture has developed, where excessive levels of (media) attention are almost exclusively awarded to works which are equally excessively emotive, simple, infantile, stupid, rudimentary, outright morally obscene and so on. The spectacle of in any way provocative content attracts the highest number of 'hits' or visitors, which in turn attracts art 'critics' and art journalists who thus perpetuate the narrative of their success - without drawing attention to, or even noticing, the actual absolute vacuity and impotence of form and content. The art and culture sections in newspapers and art magazines worldwide are filled with this vacuity.

​

Our relationship to and understanding of art history and its role in the production and reception of art in this process have been fundamentally redefined. 

​

Strategy 1C (reference to art and culture of the past) only purports to pay respect to art and culture of the past. Focus is placed on the (superficial) meaning transfer from works of the past to the vacuous contemporary work. At the same time, art history and knowledge of art history are reframed and suppressed as elitist, undemocratic and therefore unacceptable. Total oblivion of the highest achievements of the past is necessary in order for the audience, art critics and young art students and so on to accept, imbibe, consume and produce low-level vacuous contemporary artworks and shallow critique. Oblivion of the past shields audience and consumers from the fact that what they are presented with is merely the perpetual repetition and recycling of works made in the past and a small handful of by now completely hackneyed recipes.

 

Luxury brands and artists alike (ab)use a mere reference to art and culture of the past to bestow their products with an air of cultivation, significance, intellect, and uniqueness. Today's Culture Industry, having fully merged with tourist-, entertainment- and fashion industries, not only recklessly exploits, but also distorts and reshapes past achievements, hollowing them out in the process, while at the same time suppressing any room for new development in art. 

 

The actual quality, complexity, and intellect embodied by artworks made in the past are a hindrance to mass production/ the mass market, are consequently distracted from, suppressed and ultimately destroyed by the Culture Industry. 

 

The reproduction of the artwork and the original are treated as equal. The medium -a specific choice by the artist- is deemed irrelevant and therefore, exchangeable. The quality of the original -and any possibility of a perception of this quality by the audience- is suppressed. 

​

An epitome of the cultural abuse and prostitution of art made in the past is the fate suffered by van Gogh at the hands of the Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam. This museum presents Van Gogh's paintings as a mere reference to the quality of his works (strategy 1C) and the myth/story that has been created. Whilst purporting to honour, promote and protect his legacy, this museum is focussed single-mindedly on preventing the audience from being able to perceive the quality of the original work in order to be able to shamelessly turn his work into global merchandise. 

​

Giant blow-ups of details of self-portraits on the walls behind the small original paintings in glass cases make it impossible to look at the originals. Large and continuously changing video screens of van Gogh cartoons, as well as the large blow-ups of van Gogh self-portraits as selfie background walls throughout the museum ram not only the entertainment value but also an (alleged) equivalence with -if not superiority of- the reproduction over the original down the audience's throats. By the time the visitor reaches the gift shop, the apron, mug, wristwatch or tote bag carrying sunflower and bandaged-ear motives have been raised to the level of the original artwork. They now embody the same quality as the -by now invisible and permutated- 'original'. The redefinition of the art experience as entertainment, the redefinition of the role of the audience as consumers of entertainment, together with the gift shop merchandise create a (fake) sense of ownership.​

 

Sold in a city -incidentally world-famous for its red-light district and legalised narcotic drugs- these everyday objects, bestowed with an empty air of cultivation, are mere shadows of human achievements - and the saddest trophies and symbols of our degraded humanity. 

 

'Old Towns' in major cities all over the world suffer the same fate and are made to play the same role as the 'Old Masters'.

​

At the other end of the spectrum reference to art of the past is used to turn everyday items into exclusive and obscenely expensive commodities for the increasing, yet exclusive and small, number of the super-rich, feeding into the belief systems and logic which is required to establish luxury brands. The actual material ownership of artworks is exclusive to the rich. 

 

The close 'collaboration' of artists with luxury brands heightens their respective profiles and economic success - such as the artist world-famous for enlarging toys and kitsch objects, decorating Vuitton luxury handbags with images of paintings by the 'Old Masters'. The fashion industry utilises this meaning transfer - which is incredibly easy and highly effective within the Culture Industry.

 

Rembrandt's paintings shown in the stores of a famous footballer's fashion-designing wife upgrade fashion to high culture - in turn, high culture becomes fashion. Pop culture and high art merge simply when a famous pop diva wriggles her bare bottom in front of historic paintings in the Musée du Louvre - a gesture democratically broadcast to all on YouTube, and justified and accepted by the overriding demand for political correctness, gender- and racial equality and the democratisation in and of art ( strategy 1A) - and is consequently discussed globally with all seriousness by so-called art critics and journalists.

 

Artists quoting famous artworks made in the past are almost guaranteed to receive attention, if not critical acclaim. The art world's favourite here is undoubtedly the seemingly inexhaustible magnetism of any reference to human excrement - again dragging 'The Fountain', one of the intellectually most outstanding and potent works in the history of art, down to its darkest, most base and low-level shadow.

​

Today's Culture Industry exploits and hollows out the highest achievements in art and culture of the past, freezes the present by locking art into an unprecedented standardisation of art / the perpetual repetition of the above strategies, and prevents any true development of art in the future.  

 

All of this goes hand-in-hand with the absence and suppression of innovation and development - and a near-total critical silence.

​

Just for how long can we go on drawing on the meaning, power, essence and intellectual capital of the past - without producing any cultural and intellectual value of our own time? How far can we go in hollowing out art and culture before this vacuum implodes? How much cultural fast food can societies worldwide consume before we realise the degree to which we have all become unwell in the process?

​

The dangerous implications of the contemporary Art- and Culture Industry for individuals and society cannot be stressed enough. By undermining true autonomy and freedom it has evolved into a most successful industry of mass manipulation, which at its core is deeply anti-democratic.

​

​

Artists who, in the name of political correctness and democratisation, purport to be political, have the most detrimental effect. By commodifying the most serious issues of our time, such as climate change, the suffering of refugees or the efforts of political dissidents, and by commodifying democratisation itself, their works are not only impotent as art and as political agents, but they cement this very pseudo-ness and impotence into public consciousness as definitions of what art is, what political agency or artistic freedom and autonomy look like.

​

​

Surely a Ralph Rugoff, curator of the Venice Biennale 2019, for example, would vehemently deny that this mega show has a negative impact on core principles of democracy. And surely, if one was to meet the individual R. Rugoff, one would most likely find that he is indeed a nice person who truly believes that he is promoting art and artistic freedom.

 

​

Yet a central problem here is the refusal, or at best inability, of agents in the contemporary art world to look at and to understand the situation on the whole. ON THE WHOLE, it simply cannot be denied that the strategies summarised in the matrix above exert near-total control over artists, curators, critics, journalists, audience and art in the public realm.

 

When looking at the art world industry on the whole it is undeniable that a Rugoff is a passive player who acts according to predetermined rules.

 

This situation in the art world has direct parallels to how, as a society, we respond to the exploitation and destruction of natural resources and therefore the very foundations for life on this planet. The trees in my garden still look absolutely fine! Daffodils still flower in spring! Whilst at the same time we know that the Amazon Rain Forest is disappearing at an alarming rate and that our climate is nearing total collapse. We cling to and look for comfort in, the detail in order to avoid looking at the harsh reality and the crisis on/of the Whole.

 

We passionately believe that in both realms, in Nature and in Culture, it is our duty and necessary with urgency that we take our complacent gaze away from comforting, isolated detail -this or that individual artist who still manages to make work which we like- or the beautiful garden patch outside my window. 

 

It is high time -in both realms- that we take into view the situation and the crisis that is affecting the Whole. We need to understand that the detail emerges from the whole, is comprised and shaped by the whole. And that anything less than addressing and understanding this situation, on the whole, is not only futile but perpetuating its destruction.

 

Addressing this crisis of the detail and the whole and the search for wholeness is the task of our time. T.W. Adorno spoke of the tension between "das Besondere" und "das Allgemeine" (that which is special/ individual and that which is common/general). It is reflected in the collapse of the insect population worldwide and the climate on the whole, and finds its expression in the search in science for a unified model of our understanding of the workings of Nature, the link between the realm of the infinitely small (quantum physics) and the infinitely large (relativity).

 

Both, the destruction of Nature and of Culture, are driven by the same forces. Lions and elephants in Nature are as much under threat as is the free and truly autonomous individual. They are, and must never cease to be, paragons for true freedom and dignity.

 

In both realms we must find a radically new approach, requiring a fundamental, radical review, and sacrifice old and destructive practices. As our environmental consciousness is slowly evolving, the simultaneous crisis in culture however still remains hidden as if in plain sight.

​

We urgently need to review the powerful conditions under which art is made today, understand fully how they control and shape any outcomes. We need to radically reject the Culture Industry's standards and reinstate the realm of art and art education as guardians, paragons, and proponents of freedom, self-determination, and autonomy.

 

 

​

​

In order for nothing to hamper the total success of these market strategies clear rules and requirements have evolved:

​

To summarise:

The Art and Culture Industry requires and promotes

​

• artworks that are EASY in every aspect - art must be easily conceived, easily produced / re-producible, and easily received

• the total replacement of art internal with art external standards

• art which is no longer art - it must always be something else 

• the abolishment of the question "what is art?" / the total abolishment of the question whether something is art, or not 

• works which neither require nor trigger a discussion about art

• the total abandonment and obliteration of (knowledge of) art history and its standards 

• an ideal of the artist/art critic/art journalist and an audience as someone who is (equally) oblivious of and disinterested in art history and its standards

• the abolishment of 'autonomous art' which is now deemed to be boring, irrelevant and thus obsolete 

• the abolishment of the idea that an artwork could transcend the present moment, embody a timeless, universal quality and could thus to be of relevance for future generations, replaced with the idea of artworks which only play a momentary role, do not seek to transcend time, do not make a connection with the past, nor seek to provide a cultural value to future generations 

• the total oblivion of the highest standards set by art of the past 

• the limitation of awareness of art history to most recent works which have already been produced according to the rules of this very Culture Industry

• the total replacement of critical judgment with public opinion ( which is in turn shaped by what is presented as art in the public realm by this very industry)​​

• critics and journalists who have imbibed the industry's standards and enthusiastically promote work that is made according to them 

• abolishment of the relevance of art production as a private activity (that only has an effect on the public with delay), replaced with the idea that the art's primary role is to be a public activity

• the total (pseudo-) democratisation of art production deemed as 'politically correct'

• the merging of all realms with art to the point of total congruency: art is everyday life, artworks are everyday objects, art is entertainment, art is fashion, art is politics, etc. 

• replacement of art with 'research'

• replacement of the individual artist with 'collaboration' of everyone (including the refugee, the political activist, the audience, the critic etc. "Everyone is an artist."

• the total replacement of the artist with the general audience 

• the total obliteration of the role of intellectual thought

• the branding of intellectual thought and professional knowledge as 'elitist' and undemocratic

• artists and students who prioritise career ambitions over ambition within the work (business replaces work)

• art schools which are run first and foremost as businesses operating as key players within the so-called 'creative industries' 

• art schools which measure their own success by the number of 'stars' that emerge from their school, and measure the student's success exclusively as their ability to function and be successful within the market / by the amount of media attention a work can attract 

• students who are only superficially aware, if not oblivious, of art history

• students with career ambitions, who believe in the authority of high profile award schemes - which judge works in the degree of compliance with the strategies outlined in the matrix above.

• institutions/museums which place marketing value above cultural value (and those who do reap vast financial rewards).

• institutions/museums which -in the name of accessibility and democratisation of art- present reproductions of artworks from the past as equal or even superior to the originals, thus opening up vast marketing potential ( Van Gogh Museum Amsterdam).

• museum directors and senior staff with business acumen and marketing skills, and no knowledge of art history 

• museum architecture and content focussed on spectacle (spectacularly large spaces, requiring equally spectacularly big, or spectacularly stupid, entertaining, infantile or expensive works ( Turbine Hall, Tate Modern.)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

"It is in the difference itself - in divergence- that hope is concentrated." 

- 'T.W. Adorno