Why art lost its taste

[Art-lover]

It is clear that the blame for all Kant with his "no accounting for tastes." Once the taste of "no man's land, then why would it not work? Top hudrynka institutions simply were the last who managed appropriated taste.
Olivier Sen writes that gallerists taste discarded as unnecessary. This statement can be strengthened: the taste was sent to landfill, because it became a hindrance art business, and in the first place - the market sverhspekulyativnyh short-term investments.

Public purchase of works of art for big money - an act of approval by the bourgeoisie of his preference as a standard. If the money is divine, the commodity, which is paid big money - is holy, beautiful and full of all perfections. Pay the largest amount, and you prodemonstriruesh the most impeccable taste.
More than that, you pridash object of their preference status is not just socially prestigious, but also objectively beautiful - confounded Kant even without the help of the Neoplatonists. In the role of the latter had samoupolnomochennye artinstitutsii, for which he will receive the grand prize.

The contemporary art market slid into the path of inflation of the bubble, which has already led the world economy into crisis. The question now is only one: whether purses bourgeois as dimensionless, as the vanity of their owners?
If not, I'll predict: a o. time we will witness the second round of the battle Plato - Kant.

PS. The texts, which resulted in kozhinart, owned by Ludwig von Mises, a prominent economist, singer of the free market. All of them were written before 1950.
I give a piece of von Mises, sheds a balm for the soul of businessmen, offended by free artists, but at the same time protecting the freedom of independent artists from the encroachments of the powerful businessmen.

Читать дальше... 

There are baseless conceit of writers and bohemian artists allows them to condemn the activities of the businessman as unspiritual "making money". In fact, the entrepreneur or founder company takes much more intellectual ability than the average writer or artist. Mistake many people claim to intelligence, is precisely that they can not understand how much capacity and a sober mind is required in order to start and successfully run a company in the business world.

The emergence of a fairly large class of such irresponsible intellectuals is one of the most negative phenomena era of modern capitalism. Their obsession and fussiness discourage them from thinking people. They all hindrance. Humanity has nothing to lose, if it is a bit to reduce the temperature of these people, if not eradicated would have their circles and groups.

However, freedom - is the freedom for all. Any attempt to restrict the freedom of these decadent-writers and would-be painters would mean that the authorities be given the right to decide what is good and bad. This would be tantamount to the socialization of intellectual and artistic pursuit. It is not known, it would get rid of the useless and odious personalities, but surely would have put insurmountable obstacles to the development of creative genius. Strengths of this world - not fans of fresh ideas, trends, styles in art. They are generally against all innovations. Their power always means strict regulation of all, and it creates stagnation and decline.

Moral decay, promiscuity and intellectual sterility of a class is not very moral writers and artists - this is the price that humanity must pay in order to enable a true pioneer creators have their say. Freedom must be guaranteed to all, even the most unworthy people to unintentionally interfere with the few who can use it for the good of mankind. That freedom, reaching to immorality, which used a semi-indigent inhabitants of the Quartier Latin in Paris, was one of the prerequisites for the emergence of a few truly great writers, painters, sculptors. First we need a genius - to breathe the air of freedom.

After all, not the frivolous lifestyle bohemian blame for the fall of morals, but only what the community graciously accepts it

.