The film shows how good art is dependent on what is taken to be good art by certain class of people, that class being the rich. This intersects with John Berger’s argument because he is being critical of what is considered to be good art. Berger argues that the arbitrary way that the ruling class justifies good art mystifies the past and art. In the film, the elite class has the time and money to fund the art they see fit. The art critics explain the details to mean more than what they depicting in order to justify spending millions of dollars.
Art should be held ethically accountable to the extent that the artist and the spectator is not being exploited. Art tells a story about the artist and the artist should be able to have the power to decide how they would like to tell the story. Art and capital will inevitably co-mingle, but it is up to the people to set up regulations to ensure that the artist and the spectator are both respected. Artist should be able to make a living and art dealers should not be profiting millions more than the artist. The film depicts the art market screwing over the artist for the sake of the rich people’s game. Art should be for everyone and so long as there are no regulations between the artist and the market, art will remain only entertainment for the wealthy class.
I agree with Berger’s and the flim’s argument. The wealthy are able to run the art market because of their financial power. The wealthy class exploit artists for their entertainment. Under a capitalistic system, we will never be able to reach a point that ensures art is held to an ethical standard. Capitalism allows and encourages the rich to profit millions of dollars of the art market. This type of system leaves the producers of the art, the artist, to be exploited for the sake on contributing to the rich’s money scheme.