A journalist goes undercover to reveal the absurdity of the art scene

The book sounds fun, the review gets tedious at the end, whining about faux populism (as opposed to vrai populism?), blaming art collectors -- if only there was some way to make sure to only sell art to the right people.<p>It sounds like the author had fun reading the book, started writing a fun review, but then it dawned on him that the book questioned a bit more of the art world then he was comfortable with, so he found a scapegoat in collectors.

I think a lot of the financial side of the art scene tends to make a lot more sense when you look at it through the lens of money laundering.<p>It actually has a very similar set of dynamics that people might be more familiar with via NFTs.<p>But is an ideal vehicle to start moving large sums of money around where nobody can objectively agree on a price and you need a receipt to ensure the money is legitimate.

The reason the wealthy have such influence over the economics of making and selling art is that the non-wealthy are more or less categorically opposed to paying appropriate prices for art.

I recommend a book called <i>Boom: Mad Money, Mega Dealers, and the Rise of Contemporary Art</i> for a more neutral take on the art world and why art prices are so high. It’s easy to just call it “money laundering” but I think that is a lazy answer.<p>Of the many reasons why the art world is the way it is, I think a few are particularly interesting.<p>One has to do with commodification: in the last few hundred years, nearly every type of thing has become commodified: photographs (via digital cameras and social media), furniture (IKEA, etc.), and now with AI, words and digital images. And yet – the art object really hasn’t become commodified. There is only one art object treated as the authentic Mona Lisa&#x2F;Rothko No. 6&#x2F; etc. And so from a certain point of view, the art market is a recognition of this fact that certain classes of objects will become more valuable because they cannot be commodified. This makes them entirely worthwhile investments on their own terms and you don’t need a vast conspiracy to underpin that market.<p>Another interesting reason is how artists have somewhat merged with celebrities, which the <i>Boom</i> book covers. This started happening with Warhol but took off in the 80s. Artists are a kind of celebrity that instead of selling millions of books&#x2F;concert tickets&#x2F;music albums&#x2F;etc., package all of their “fame value” into a smaller number of objects.

Mirror of &quot;International Art English&quot; since the original website was broken for me: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gwern.net&#x2F;doc&#x2F;culture&#x2F;2012-rule.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gwern.net&#x2F;doc&#x2F;culture&#x2F;2012-rule.pdf</a>

If you find the linked website as reader hostile as I did, here&#x27;s a more readable archived version: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;vFZet" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;vFZet</a>

&quot;...where the cultural elite can no longer exclude people based on race, gender or sexual identity, so they come up with clever new ways to build moats around their little castles.&quot;<p>Oh, wow. Best thought I&#x27;ve heard for a while. As an immigrant living in Northern Europe, this basically explains 90% of my daily life.

Well yeah, there is obviously a lot of bullshit in the art scene.<p>My &quot;favorite&quot; are quite pedestrian looking artworks that only (supposedly) become interesting through some nebulous explanation text full of five-dollar words. If it tells me that the material is glass from the Trinity tests or sewer sludge, OK I&#x27;ll take it, that&#x27;s interesting. I like clever names, too. If the artist otherwise wanted to say something that the artwork doesn&#x27;t say, that&#x27;s a failure of the work IMO.