I like your use of "culture workers," which you surely realize immediately invokes the term "sex workers." The implications should be obvious enough that they need not be elaborated on.
I still feel like the "Art World Establishment" easily covers the spectrum critics, auction houses, dealers, galleries and publications that make up the so-called mono-culture ecosystem. Honestly, I fail to see how things are demonstrably worse than they were 30 years ago when the same "art world" hailed as genius a guy who plopped snails into paint and set them onto a canvas. Or adored so-called Performance Pieces that were nothing more than infantile shock theater pieces, facile critiques of "consumerism" featuring photos of a dollar store... Do a search of Iconic Visual art in the 90s and there is truly very little "there" to applaud, and yet: it was and sold for many millions.
My question always comes around to: Why even bother? Why try and fix, comment on, fight with or otherwise engage with a system that probably hasn't been much use to anyone for a good 75 years? It's like when an adult child keeps trying to engage with, or seek approval of, their abusive, neglectful alcoholic parent. At a certain point it's time to just move on. If they decide to clean up and come around again, that's on them.
The fact is, there is an ASTOUNDING amount of beautiful, thoughtful and extremely well-crafted Art out there. From what I can tell the hardly any of it gets sold or shown via the Art Establishment. Artists post work on Instagram, self-fund and have their own online sales platforms, organize their own gallery shows and just circumvent the entire dead Art Establishment.
And the Monoculture, of course, presumes to be the best to be had and the only one needed. The name implies the entity is invested in being The One--not unlike the Queen in Snow White.
Artstablishment
Artocracy
Yeah! ~
"The Art World" is like calling supermarkets "The Food World."
I call it the Regime
“Conformalism”.
I like your use of "culture workers," which you surely realize immediately invokes the term "sex workers." The implications should be obvious enough that they need not be elaborated on.
I still feel like the "Art World Establishment" easily covers the spectrum critics, auction houses, dealers, galleries and publications that make up the so-called mono-culture ecosystem. Honestly, I fail to see how things are demonstrably worse than they were 30 years ago when the same "art world" hailed as genius a guy who plopped snails into paint and set them onto a canvas. Or adored so-called Performance Pieces that were nothing more than infantile shock theater pieces, facile critiques of "consumerism" featuring photos of a dollar store... Do a search of Iconic Visual art in the 90s and there is truly very little "there" to applaud, and yet: it was and sold for many millions.
My question always comes around to: Why even bother? Why try and fix, comment on, fight with or otherwise engage with a system that probably hasn't been much use to anyone for a good 75 years? It's like when an adult child keeps trying to engage with, or seek approval of, their abusive, neglectful alcoholic parent. At a certain point it's time to just move on. If they decide to clean up and come around again, that's on them.
The fact is, there is an ASTOUNDING amount of beautiful, thoughtful and extremely well-crafted Art out there. From what I can tell the hardly any of it gets sold or shown via the Art Establishment. Artists post work on Instagram, self-fund and have their own online sales platforms, organize their own gallery shows and just circumvent the entire dead Art Establishment.
And the Monoculture, of course, presumes to be the best to be had and the only one needed. The name implies the entity is invested in being The One--not unlike the Queen in Snow White.