Believing that master pieces are still being produced is like believing in the future both are certainties, this part is what deeply struck me when watching the film. Throughout the whole film we see hundreds of pieces of art that sell for either hundreds of thousands or tens of millions, Berger’s understanding of that art is something for the rich and the elite is ever present. To be a collector has a requirement, one of which is a large sum of money that of which 99.999999999% of the world could never afford. The artists of past that collectors seek out today at their time never sought out the fame or money and were just artist doing work. The rich and elite who can afford classic and modern art are in almost total control, of where the pieces end up.
Now is this the next enemy of the world is it that tiny .0001% of art collectors should the common people rise together and throw them from the roofs of their condos and mansions. I argue not necessarily, and my reasoning for it is for the artists themselves in the film it was said only a tiny fraction of artist can ever even support themselves are artists. Should an artist become an artist to sell they works for millions and reap the profits, or should the artist just by happenchance be recognized for their pieces and the money become just a benefit of such. Who deems the art is great, collectors or the artists? This is what resonated in my head watching the film, art collectors casting aside their ethics to buy art cheap and turn around and sell it for a fortune is what I think sits very ill in the public that thinks evil of art collectors and Berger’s elite controlling what is art is and keeping it for themselves. Should this massive capital of wealth, when the artist themselves of the 60s and 70s sold their pieces for just a few thousand dollars like Larry Poons. That is the great question and issues facing these pieces that traffic the community.
Building off more in my second part, is it unfair that I can’t go to the local art dealer and purchase one of this pieces by Poon or Richter, yes but its understandable. I would never being willing currently to spend over 100 bucks over a piece of art but to these collectors are willing to spends millions are them and nowadays we see artist get the reward of these purchases. Which is good, not many renown artist are born into fortune and do art as a side hobby in which they reap the rewards, but artist are born into life with nothing but their hands and canvas to work with (or marble or whatever you wish to use to create the work). Van Gogh was never recognized in his art during his time and feel deep into depression, eventually killing himself. Nowadays almost ever person on the street could name at least one piece of his. Does this relate to Berger’s theory kind of how we mystify his pieces as masterworks and prostrat ourselves before them, worshiping him as the greatest creator ever. While I love his works, there is no way in hell i could every afford a sketch of his, and to me… that’s fine, I can experience it all through the camera like Berger says. Just now I googled starry night and saw hundreds of images of it and alter forms of it, and with this I believe the public has already won the war with the elite. Pieces horded by them can just be jpeg uploaded to google and displayed for billions of people with internet access to view. NFTs are the new way to horde internet images that no one else has but deep down truly I think Berger predicted it all, no grand revolution in the art industry where the elite are thrown down but ones in which the assets of the elite are now no longer trapped behind mansion gates and condo security but able to be pulled up by 22 year old college students writing a blog post about how they can view all the masterpieces of the world from the comfort of their bed and without a penny spent.