In this first quarter of the century, great revolutions, artistic movements, ideological and political poles disappear. In Marx's words, it is as if "All that is solid melts into air". The dissolution of the Soviet Union, China's transition to a Post-Communist economy, and the movement of the capital of art from Paris to New York deeply affected the art market, and these radical changes paved the way for the formation of Neoliberal art. In the second half of the 20th century, art transitioned from claiming to change life to being a part of a neoliberal world.
So, what is Neoliberism and how does it affect art? First of all, in the Neoliberal order, free trade is talked about. In an unregulated trade, not only the liquidation and privatization of the social state is out of the question, but privatization also brings about the disidentification of a traditional and ossified social order, unemployment and the loss of power of unions. In this century we live in, consumerism has become more cultural than ever.
Art has also begun to gain material power from this unbridled capitalism, and has witnessed the hybridity and unlimited freedom of diversity in terms of content. As the essence of our modern world turns towards branding and advertising, art has become an area where artists and their works with the highest brand value are focused, such as the movies with the highest box office revenue. At this point, while those that create the greatest added value to contemporary art today are museum houses such as Christie's and Sotheby's, giant investors such as Saatchi, Gagosian and Jopling (White Cube), David Geffen, Steve Cohen, Adam Sender determine the economic status of the art market.
The great merchants of the 20th century, such as Leo Castelli and Duveen, have been replaced by institutions and galleries today. The biggest change in art investment and marketing compared to the last century is that the period of movements ("isms") is no longer used as a basis for buying and selling works. While in the past, the extent to which a work would be approved in the art world was mostly decided by taking social impulses and universal values (content) as priority (the value of a work of art could occur spontaneously within the political or social conjuncture in its natural flow), today the approval of a work's place in contemporary art history and finding its value are reduced only to the final sales success. At this point, Tobies Mayer's famous quote may come to mind: "The best art is the most expensive art."
So is it really so? So, does the fact that an artist's works can be sold at very high prices with his first exhibition really determine the value of the work of art? Or does a blank canvas worth sixty million dollars really deserve that artistic value?
First of all, it is necessary to look at the facts that determine the value of art today. Today, the value of a work of art is determined by the structure of the galleries and collectors to which the artist is affiliated, rather than its content. The reason why a work is more expensive or lower in value than other works of art is not related to whether a lot of effort has been spent or whether it was produced in a short or long time. Often the value of the work depends on how the artist is branded with galleries and art institutions. The brand always sells. As art has become more of a means of ostentation and entertainment compared to the last century, brand value has also become an investment tool. Wealthy investors undoubtedly play a major role in this. While expensive cars, luxury yachts and floors become cheap show-off items for the ultra-rich, art creates an ideal basis of prestige for that level. Because money has no meaning in the world of the rich. At that level, everyone has money, the important thing is that they can buy the prestige and status provided by a work of contemporary art. Being able to buy a Rothko ($72.8 million) or a Jackson Pollock ($140 million) makes people different in that world. This understanding of art reflects an interesting fact that the history of contemporary art today can be written by a few buyers.
While obscurity, originality and free production, which are the most basic conditions of art, were generally produced in uncertain periods of history, today capital has become the determinant and guide of many things. For example; While working with a branded gallery provides a guarantee for the artist's career, the gallery's work with a well-known artist also provides prestige for the gallery. This forms the basic loop of the art market's food chain. On the other hand, today's inclusion of works of art in exhibitions by determining their brand value without contradicting each other has made art a safer place. The ability to take risks, which has been at the core of art almost since the modern period, has begun to disappear today. Large companies support the art scene in order to polish their images and force artists and art institutions to organize hybrid exhibitions in order for the exhibitions they sponsor to be valued in the international arena. (Behind the "new media" and installations are the financial support of large companies and proven galleries and museums around the world with billion-dollar budgets. Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons are artists whose productions can be given as examples in this context.)
The fact that art goes hand in hand with the business world inevitably brings the following question to mind: Can we still talk about real art in a field whose market has expanded so much and is completely dependent on the cultural economy? In a world art that revolves around money and relationships, could contemporary art and artists be in a position where they cannot put forward any synthesis or alternative regarding life and the future?
First of all, it must be acknowledged that the art of the 21st century is no longer in a position to draw strength from or challenge art movements and ideologies. In other words, postmodernism did not emerge only with the end of the promises (utopia) of modernism. In fact, it cannot even be said that it is a concept created for postmodernism. Postmodernism is simply the hopeless result of the marriage of free market economy with social culture and art. It is now the name of difference and colorfulness, a brand new hybridity. The Armani exhibition held at the Guggenheim Museum in 2000 can be given as an example. Guggenheim, one of the most important museums in the world, chose to exhibit a creation that still has an active sales price, instead of organizing the historical processes of Armani collections. Thus, perhaps for the first time, a fashion house's exhibition was held in a museum, not on the catwalk. Today, the situation of art magazines that do not hesitate to include advertisements for big brands (Armani, Prada, etc.) or fashion photographers who take photographs of these brands is no different. The fact that fashion works appear in galleries (Steven Meisel, Steven Klein, etc.) and that these works are included in art catalogs or fairs is an indication of how intertwined economy and art are in the century we live in today.
This interlocking of fashion, technology and finance sectors forms the basis of today's art. Finance is no longer just about the flow of money or capital. Therefore, art has become part of fashion, part of finance and part of developing technology in this neoliberal order. Now, when we come across a work, what is more important than what the work means is why it is exhibited under that institution and what the price range is. (In fact, the high price often makes the work meaningful)
Thus, companies try to increase their brand value by using art, and artists try to make their names heard more under these institutions. The philanthropic policy of the business world in the 20th century has been replaced by partnerships with today's artists or museums. While the aim of companies consists of turning a product into a brand and marketing it to the public, today the policy of marketing art to the rich and elite has been added to this attitude. For this purpose, less risky exhibitions that do not conflict with each other must be organized. Because now the exhibited works and artists are protected under brand assurance. In this context, it can be said that art has begun to place the artist in a more protected position under the institutions that market goods to the public. All these developments are not something new for the history of art, they are the result of the organization of a certain group around art that has been going on since 1500. The groundbreaking transformations of the Medici Family in Florence laid the groundwork for the Renaissance and later for the formation of modern art. This trade and financial network, which was established behind all this political and artistic sovereignty with the Medici family, is still maintained under the auspices of large companies and brands.
Nowadays, art has become a part of a neoliberal world. State policies have begun to affect the culture of countries and people's lifestyles, and therefore, branding and corporatization have come into question in the field of art. Large profits are no longer realized through individual, traditional productions, but in the corporate arena, within the orbit of brands and the financial sector. Today, it is as if the role of art and the artist as prosecutors in the modern era has ended; This network of relationships seems to have carried the artist into a neoliberal propagandist position.
Ali Alışır
2012