The part art plays in creating screens in front of ideological constructs, politics, conflicting interests and problems so that issues won’t be dealt with but swept under the carpet, forgotten and washed since the cause is obviously good as art is in the picture. That truth is not visible but toyed with, manipulated in the name of good for all. PR and visualization at the expense of quality and equality. True interests of big players stay hidden and artist is merely a button.

It is not news many people with conservative leanings have a tight relationship with art. To hang out and know artists is somewhat of a cliché in which posing and supporting is a merit to have. I have wondered why such culture holds on so persistently and why there are artists who allow art to be used for politics and a means for hype of public relations. Some artists are in desperate need for recognition and funds. It is almost a default and expectation for an artist to think and be in need, assumption of what artist wants, is for and must do is to lure money. What is the advantage there to be had for one with means and a cause to promote? Power of art is quite mighty because of many illusion made by Art History and how art is still portrayed as a saving force, struggle and possible win, a trophy. Social status, intellectual smoke screen, intellectual dishonesty, advertising and pretending go hand in hand, grandiose can appear pretty hollow. It may be an easy-looking path to be an art lover but what does it mean to really love art? Lovers of art are uplifted by art, moved but are the changed by it? Meaning of art is and can therefore be huge.

Turn your world into a canvas, turn it into marble and you are the one with chicle, imagine yourself as a maker. It is such chocolate box romanticized image as is the grande artist who creates extraordinary visions to marvel and admire. To glue this vision on which is the dusty load from Art History used over and over again as it does not grow worn out: Divinity at play. Cult of genius lives on since it is appealing to many. To be an important visual artist is still a pedestal many wish to be on and many institutions like to abuse. Isn’t that the most important job for art especially for people who have power to use art to boost themselves, power positions and causes for which art is used as an extension to mark character and public image as art friendly and cities as cultural capitals and centers. Art signifies intellect for some, civilized and uplifting ground which supposedly lifts up, makes something new constantly and is looking forward, is looking into the future with new eyes, ideas and supposedly new kind of cash flow. Money stays in the hands of the few no doubt. Money and art go together in some cases like the crook and possibility for a blow up, too much talk, promise and a grin, yes we are so happy up here. It is often made to look like that art is for all people when it is to create power position and strengthen it. There are many reasons to love art and all kinds of love. Sounds cynical doesn’t it, and it is. Or what do you think when Guggenheim report to investigate is museum profitable in Helsinki is only in English and translated only when protested, that the museum is told to be experimental and focus on development of something, I’m not quite sure of what, Helsinki art scene? Well it sure does need development, more on the attitude and idea level which do not show to be as experimental and new in real life especially when bureaucrats do the shady-looking business behind citizens’ backs and wish to make it look like something new and dazzling. Yes it is a grande WTF.

The rich patron the arts when public funding is not sufficient or otherwise lacking or for many reasons. It is almost duty of those with means, a good deed, a shield with which to fight against all evil, against banality to show extraordinary, against bad taste. Critics who may and will give unpleasant and so unearned criticism may point out what art is for. Substantial wealth created with suspicious ways and those ways hidden with help of playing a patron of arts seemingly a good thing is the normal that belongs to culture of charity done by the super-rich, ideology of trickle down is a good thing there like ever. Therefore I am as all should be very suspicious when the art and business world play the part of being on the side of good as a whole. Guggenheim is a good example of rhetoric in which imported culture is worth more than local G having an uplifting effect on a small operator, an international influence and contacts which supposedly are always a good thing.

Error establishing a database connection: Question since I am puzzled: Why did Nazis steal all the art treasures during WW2? Was art like money in bank or did they love art?

The peril of hipster economics

When urban decay becomes a set piece to be remodelled or romanticised.


Art in Diplomacy and Conflict | Episode 34

to listen is worth your while.