Is it possible for the art world to critique capitalism of which it is very depended on, the system, the art world is as art is capital? Does anyone know what kind of a system art is?

It seems to me the ideal of the art making, ideal of an artist and idea of the benevolent, kind and good doing art has made the perfect shell on this thing called the art world who are those who protect and support artist on their way, that critiquing it, is close to blasphemy and an act of negative feelings. As it is a business one must behave businesslike and a scandal is truly risky, most scandals nowadays are about what kind of financiers there has been, where the money has come from. One true art scandal lies there, how about that social justice when you are taking money from oil companies and pharmaceutical corporations, not good. In fine art know the right people, right places, the ways of penetrating awareness, know the language, making awe, know the style of contemporary art, you will recognise it and then do it. Put your sign up there, so you will be seen. This is my suggestion. It is a con, a perfect place for a con artist and con art experts who do not do their homework, art institutions to con, copy in search for originality and a hit. Too much shock is too much, but this is preposterous and to talk about good things happens among friends, professionality is about cleanliness, order, finance and hygiene.

Capitalism the word is here and there a villain or an all giving and all solving godlike apparatus. Smashing it is what many yearn or wait to happen. What does the making of change in places of art mean for art, what does art do when it makes change or eventually evolves, and for the public, for the society as a whole, not just for those who consume art? Does change, a reform of any kind, and of anything, understanding, enlightenment, begin to happen after when media tells you about the game changing revolutionary art since places of art are nevertheless and regardless exclusive and they must be visible. Many people don’t dare to go in and/or are not interested, aren’t even aware of?? What is the intimidation, what is the scare? Million dollar question and acknowledging how much power lies in the art world. Making social change is very tricky in an arrogant expensive place, what does it even mean? Arrogance rejects extremes, unfamiliar, not fitting the aesthetics, the people, the interior, removing unclean noticeable flaws which makes irritating and appall laughably easy and fun. Carry your work in a common mall plastic bag does it as does choice of clothing. So much for fitting in. Trying to fit in is against art. Fitting in is design.

Question is for one who is interested in contemporary art and why, by what does this weird thinking and making get fuelled, philosophy and science? How well do places of art and artists take risks when it comes to choosing art for a show, safe bets for cashflow guaranteed? It is reputation that is on the line and financial support which has meant sanitary art is in sanitary places, safe. Trauma is behind the corner, what horror on the wall, is that art. Oftentimes art world likes to identify with social justice movements, which is interesting as the art world is known to be a place of unjust and nonmovement, progress is on the surface and in the technology, are gimmicks progress? I like to think not. Closed doors, tied down/shut up-culture, bring justice forward here is not understanding what the environment is and what is just, not seeing the problem there within or doing anything about it knowingly. I believe all happens knowingly, manipulation is in the visual, it is so strict. Social justice which is a well-meaning, good thing to have and be for: progress is that we will all be united one day, right? Well, it is truly progress. We all want seas be rid of pollution, right? Concepts like capitalism, it clearly is a concern, unity and what does it mean in capitalism, but to my mind not enough a concern. Art is probably not even touching the problems it must face, just petting them, it is there, we know it, we know but most we look at problems of others. Money is so good, isn’t it and there is never enough of money (artists are rated by money, money makes an artist) and art is never big enough… size matters as it dazzles, gives an experience. White walls are luxurious, stylish and everywhere in clean places where order is appreciated.

Art work which critiques capitalism in designer-like fashion for example by saying “Capitalism will collapse from within” conceptual artwork by Elmgren & Dragset, 2003, a painting represented by internationally recognised galleries, which is always important to mention for value, strikes as a slogan from a t-shirt. Work is placed on a wall casually hanging from one corner in front of a safe, so maybe it is simulating a demonstration and hiding a robbery, (constantly in mind to go to the streets but then run) turned into a luxury object. Hmm, so it is critiquing itself, the artists and telling what artists really want (what is in that safe)? What is in this picture that is untrustworthy? Maybe nothing but definitely something. It is funny and irritating at the same time, when I noticed the safe on the wall it dawned on me it is about the structure. Biggest joke is the white wall and all that whiteness around the work. Is it the price tag that is odd, that it is for sale, of course (you can find it on Artsy-application which is for selling art).Is this critique towards those who believe in capitalism as the work is on show in a grandiose tiptop place for art or just mere hopelessness in front of choices artists must make, place of warning of a burning world, burning from within?? Is art world a place for social justice with sense of style, a functioning one? Isn’t it biting its own leg as art world is very depended on capitalism, the system created for creating wealth and art being a very strong signifier of wealth, an asset? What does art world think of critique which is targeted on them and most importantly what does the art world do other than go on as it ever was? Only thing that moves it is the market and financial depression, where the money goes and is. What happens in this future collapse we are facing and who will go running from within, which is the place where art is, the within, and comes from, I hope. Walls and built things are the within, the within is something we rely on the most, the safe place we are afraid of losing?

I am sceptical of the amount of benevolence and altruism there. A constant concern for me when it comes to art is what are the motives there. As said art is a business and in business one does not play too much with fire, does one? Although when looking at finance world taking risks is essential and we pay for it. So it is good and safe to take risks in finance but not in art? Art world taking risks is an interesting issue as for instance those who collect art are known for not making risky choices. What does “Capitalism will collapse from within” say to a collector? How to make more money with it? How to hide when destruction strikes? How the art work will grow more valuable as there will be more banking crises, homelessness, unemployment, poverty, insecurity etc.? Is it a prophesy or lookalike hotel in a wall? Are artists functioning as oracles who know something about the system we rely on? One essential question is how does an artist work outside the art world? That is called outsider artist which is really funny. Is it even possible as the system is so tightly framed to be an artist outside? Many question that, still. You are not accepted by the right people, you are not an artist. You do not have money, you are not an artist. These rules are some I have come by and are a result of the current art system, which is fanatic for stars, visibility, greatness and excess. Massive and working in a strict manner simulating openness, an intellectual con which appears for example when art English aims to impress and experts create interesting sentences without much content: it looks good, what is it, did you bake it?

Let’s dig deeper into professionalism, shall we. The credentials for professional vary and the idea is understood in different ways.

Is there something such as professional pride? Pride of doing one’s job as well as possible, as well as one is able and knowing what it means to do job at hand well, any job? I have come to learn that such pride is not what it used to be, when work was your signature, pride and measure of worthiness in the eyes of those who enjoy fruits of one’s labor. Are we so spoiled already that work is not who we are in the meaning that it only makes it possible for us to live and express ourselves outside work? Is that what being spoiled is, to have free time to express oneself and feel free? I think it is. How does this effect the way we work and do our work and most importantly appreciate as work? Work must make a decent living, be valued as craft and expertise, worker be valued as someone whose effort is noticed and appreciated. Someone who just has a job is not enough, we want more than that because we are fully what we do for work. Job must be something which can be valued as modern and an achievement, an extension to one’s personality, fulfilling ambition, one being able to show talent, capability, proof of all this existing in this one person.

Fair enough, we are entitled to this luxury, aren’t we. Be appreciated and be paid for what we are worth, what our work is worth, our labor input. What other things follow hopefully are plusses. We are entitled to search for fulfilment via work and be tormented when this does not happen. It is unfortunate when work does not involve exchange of money, it is possibly not considered work but something else, a service. Naming is important, exchange is too, interaction. Is what you feel important in this matter? Money is there in one form or the other, work as money possibly. To work and make can be seen as means of exchange, value is in what was made and done and how the exchange happened. Our values are largely bound to money as is our way of living, making money is valuable as such, having money, looking like you have money. How is that the biggest one value there is and why there does not seem to be enough ever? Money gives value to people and money only? Is how much the most used question and basis for understanding value? Value of work done where does it lie? Important seems to be who does the work: gender has an important role in creating value.

My quest is to understand professionalism and how we understand what it is. For most the pay check is proof enough, the title, education, network and being busy, accomplishing and achieving, making progress such as getting more money and more fancy titles, getting ahead on career path. I have been wondering this issue because there seems to be a huge misunderstanding or collective mind-set, one-way path, what it takes to do one’s job well, what is achieving something, having a path, pursuing goals and why this pursuing goals which self-evidently belongs to choosing careers is important to take up and obey, choosing up one’s career. What is a career, who validates it, is it given or taken?

Interestingly rules for professional in business are tightly tangled with art which makes it curious to be an artist when to create something new constantly and being one’s own boss, at least for me, are at risk of becoming something else. Artist should be a brand, a product to sell her art. Ways of becoming a brand and product is very business culture obedient more and more. That is not good news for art. Something goes missing easily which is personality, uniqueness and following path of one’s own despite what happens, doing what I want to do contradicts the business savvy heavily for a reason. What is expected of you is to obey.

When art is an investment what are the expectations and when art pursues not fulfil expectations but move further what happens? When the interest lies in ways of presentation, what and how expensive one’s equipment is, who do you know and where you live, are based, as it is said nowadays, where are we based exactly, where do we base our priorities? What is lost in this kind of interest in showing off and thinking the tools make the art more than you ever can, professional emerges when one possesses the right kind of kit? Yuk. Freedom of making out of scratch, out of nothing without need to impress by things, places and domains, play a role in making something worthy nowadays. Sure to look nice even presentable is what you are looking for go for it, but to expect that be the professional way is corporal setting and harnessing, waste of something good and turning into mass product, likeable and following instructions for professional outlook to impress as professional. Who is the artist in this picture and why the need for grandiose and expensiveness is so important to make an awe, an effect, spectacle and produce value which is bloated ready to explode? Is it business as usual we should have?

Size of one’s studio, sizes of cameras, how does an artist look like, what is the street credible look for an artist, in which city to dwell, where to show one’s art and what kind of art to make? Large prints, monumental paintings, what is the it thing, if it interests anyone? Maybe the contents will tell the value??
I also ask because to come across people who consider themselves professionals due to positions they have been granted, things they deliver and give back do not often strike as well done, having done one’s homework kind of thing at all, quite on the contrary. Professionalism is one issue where trickle down effect goes wrong, something gets in the way, like lack of will to share and contribute. So where is the professionalism when you have to put yourself on the line, your career and what does it mean to do one’s job so that there is pride, ability there in the right way, not in the way that the work serves only you and interests of yours but something larger and as we do not live alone in the world, our work affects others too pretty profoundly.