Blog 3: Capitalism ruins Art

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.



  1. kathydsimmons says:

    I agree – its interesting that art has been reduced, in a way, to something like stock shares. It sits on someone’s wall and gains value if they invested their money wisely, or loses value if they did not. There’s nothing intrinsic in the paint and canvas, for example, that justifies millions upon millions of dollars of worth. Its just crazy!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alyssa N. says:

      It is definitely crazy! I don’t seem to understand how a system that only benefits a select few has continued to have the power that it does.


  2. ella04151 says:

    I agree that the art world is being run over by the rich class and regulations should be put up so the rich can no longer control what should be available and appreciated by all. So many artist have and will get screwed over by the art market and dealers if it continues this way.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alyssa N. says:

      This makes me question whether enough regulations can be put in place to ensure that the artist does not get exploited. Maybe, this is a sign that this is what capitalism was exactly meant to do and no matter how much we tweak the system, the fact is that capitalism will prevail in exploiting the middle class and lower class.


  3. zeldalov364 says:

    Hey Alyssa! I liked what you mentioned about how the whole system is screwing over the artist. I thinks it’s crazy that these art pieces are selling for millions and the artist are barely seeing any of that money. It definitely feels like exploitation and a money scheme for the rich to get richer. I also liked how you mentioned that the art dealers seemed like they were just trying to justify the insane amounts of money being spent by giving us bs details and reasons on why each piece they were selling was so special and important. It felt like they didn’t really care much about the art at all and only how they profited from it.


  4. emilyvaneaton99 says:

    Hi, Alyssa. I like your GIFs, they bring a little lighthearted spirit to an otherwise dense and weighty topic. I agree with your points – it brought to mind the artist highlighted in the documentary who lives in Kenya. The interviewer told her that one of her works had just been re-sold at auction for an amount far greater than what she initially received. When a music artist writes a song, if anyone else is to make money from that song, the original artist would receive royalty payments for every time the song is played. Maybe a way to keep everything fair is to introduce a royalty system? Every time a work of art is sold or traded, the artist would get a percentage of that profit. It might discourage the “flippers” from buying a work cheap, mystifying it, and flipping it for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s