Over the last two decades the entire structure of art education, distribution and understanding, has changed almost beyond recognition. These days it is easier to be an illustrator than an artist for at least the illustrator has a set brief to work to that they know will be understood and accepted. They also have a style that has been chosen by the person who commissioned them. The illustrator does not need to justify their existence to society because they have a set function and they are paid for it. No arguments, no confusion, thus all are happy.

Fine art, or: "art", on the either hand, is in utter crises.

Unless you are not art interested at all you perhaps may not have noticed that there are no art critics around anymore. Last week in the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" (Evening News) there was an article with the dramatic heading: WHERE ARE ALL THE ART CRITICS?

Well I can tell you exactly why they have vanished and where they have all gone to.

The truth is art has come to the point where literally anything can be classed as art simply because no one can define what art is. The art critics know this and have decided to retire from the whole art game. I call it a game because the art critics have finally realized that they have been used and manipulated by unscrupulous artists as a way of drawing attention to their work with the intention of propelling them into the limelight and as a short cut to fame.

Fame = quick way to the top = riches

The game worked like this: An Artist produces something that is either outrageous / shocking or provocative and presents it as "art". The art critic comes along to view it and says it is either:
NOT art or BAD art

The artist then smiles with glee because the dumb art critic has fallen into their trap and thus shouts;
"If it is not art or bad art then it means that the art critic must know exactly what art is. So please explain why my art is bad or not art at all?

Of course the art critic knowns they can't because there simply is no definitive answer to art and so the artist gets their name in the newspaper and on TV because they have now ridiculed the art critic.

This had become the game and so in roespones to that the art critic has decided to retreat and found themselves a job in the education system. So in answer to the Norwegian newspaper, if you want to find where all the art critics have gone then you will find them teaching art history in art colleges or universities around the world.

This devaluing of art critics was not only by the artists but also by the collectors.

The last great art critic was of course the brilliant Robert Hughes or who I am proud to say I once met. The Austalian born art critic and historian new more about art than a hotel chef knows about hot dinners. In an art documentary not long before he died, he interviewed the billionaire art collector Aby Rosen who had just bought a work by the controversial artist, Damien Hirst, for about $2 million.
Hughes comments: "Damien Hirst is overvalued and underwhelming in originality"
To which Rosen replied: "That's OK I like it and I can afford to pay for it, so end of story"

Basically the art collectors were telling the art critics to: "got o hell" and that that their opinion is no longer relevant. Hughes died no longer afterwards.
With an art historian / critic of the caliber of Hughs now out of the way the void he left was been filled with the opinion of the art collectors. With that significant change art has now become more about money that it ever has about art. In effect the rich have high-jacked art and made it into a speculation game that only the rich can play.

One might think that all this money in art is only positive but you would be wrong. Art collectors tend to buy only established artists work because fame sells. Works by Warhol, Picasso, Pollock, Hirst and so on. New struggling artists are unknown and unknown means none-entity thus has a none value. Therefore artists struggling to make a living get virtually no income at all selling their work on the streets or have to work shitty jobs in order to pay for rent.

I believe this dramatic change has affected arts' natural evolution.

Without the foundation for art that was originally establish by art teachers, are critics /philosophers, gallery owners etc, over hundreds of years, then who exactly is deciding what is good or bad art?
The answer is: no one. Thus it has become a free for all with anyones opinion having equal value.

This situation has now created the breeding ground for art education itself to become under question.
I hear conversations in Facebook art groups suggesting that we do away with art education altogether and just let people do whatever they want and just let mass opinion decide what is art. This is a powerful argument and one not easily countered because we all want freedom of choice.
However too much freedom is also dangerous. At times we all wish Governments would dissolve but we forget that without Government enabling law and order then it would be Mob rule. In a world of mob rule it is always the weak and vulnerable who suffer the most. Artists tend to be sensitive peopled it is why great art has the power to move us. This it would be the sensitive artists who would be the first casualties in a free for all art world shouted down by those who are clever at marketing themselves.

I actually believe this is inevitable because there is no real answer against it and Governments of course will be quite happy for it to happen because there has been a systematic devaluation of art education in school and colleges since the1970s.

In the end it will be the numbers of followers an artist has that will deiced what value their art, thus marketing will become a key factor more than the quality. Just recently I saw a post on an art group on Facebook. This self professed beginner/amateur artist asked for: "feedback". I gave some thoughts of how I thought it could be improved and was then frankly told to: "fuck off" and that my 7 years art education counted for: "shit".
What did I learn from this experience? That in fact all he wanted was praised rather than an objective opinion or guidance. Thus it becomes a case of once bitten 50 times shy. These days I never comment at all.

What affect this will have on the development of art itself remains to be seen but I have a feeling quantity will win over quality. Art may become devalued in society with only art made from already dead established artists having any actually real financial value to art collectors. Today the world is driven by money and fame thus art will have to fit into that environment. Money and fame is shallow so in theory so will be the art.

However, the fact that art cannot be explained is the very reason why art is so important to civilization. Thus to get rid of art would be likened to that of removing all the birds from the sky. The sky would still be there but our experience of it would be significantly reduced. And continuing with the sky analogy, if too many birds filled the sky then we would not be able to appreciate the sky. Thus it is the also a danger that the world can have too much art. Remove the constraints of what is good or bad art and the world will become flooded with so much art we wont know what to do with it. But if the sky really was over-run with birds then we would simply get out our guns and begin shooting them down. And thus in a world with too much art...well perhaps we might see large bonfires burning crap art from artists that had a low number of followers or likes.

To finish, in an ironic twist to this whole tzumain of change in and towards art, I recently saw two things that made me smile. In a "TED-like" talk given by the german art historian Jan Verowert who teaches at the art academy in Oslo, Norway, an young artist asked him why he, and other art-talkers, had stopped giving their opinions of current up-and coming artists work and that she (the artist) would gladly like to have his opinion. His reply was shocking: " I do not wish to be a father figure to the artist. It is not my job to hold your delicate little hand in order to lead you into the right or wrong direction"

So it seems that, now that the up-and-coming artist have successfully gotten rid of the art critics, it appears they need them and want them back. Too late.

And something else, I also recently read an article in that the art collectors, including Aby Rosen, are now saying that art has: "got stuck in a rut" and needs a new Picasso to show them where art should go.
Well well well, but wait a minute, havent you have just destroyed the entire base of how it was possible for a Picasso to come forth? Was it not the gallery owner and art critic who first saw Picasso's art and then brought it to the world? And then the art historians wrote about him?
So please, all you billionaire art collectors, how is it possible for a new form or art by a new genius to happen when that bases no longer exists. Just like everything else, greed destroys the very thing it loves. Like Aesop's story of the Goose that laid the golden egg, its owners killed cut and cut it open in order to get at the gold only to discover they had killed the goose.

I am well aware that whatever I say or write about on this subject will not alter anything or make the slightest difference to what will happen because I believe history happens in waves and some waves are tsunamis. Periods in history which appear to be unstoppable and all we can do is run to the hills until everything settles down. Like the rise of the Nazi party. Many tried to speak out against but were either tortured for opening their mouths or shot. Art does not cause death on a mass scale like the Nazi regime of course, but perhaps the drastic reduction of the value art has society could cause the the death of value itself.

And when the tzunami is over and the landscape of art has become utterly unrecognisable then I guess we will simple do what we always do. Start again and begin rebuilding from scratch.

Thank you for visiting my blog. If you like what you have read then a thumps up is always appreciated and a warm welcome back to you next time. I will not ask you to follow me because I am bored of all that game. If you genuinely like what I post then that's great so I leave that decision to you.