Detailed, but rather dry about cost in the world of contemporary art A documentary about the economics of contemporary art. From the beginning, the context is well set: the mortgage crisis in the US in 2008, the frustrated employees of Lehman Brothers, and then – a record-breaking auction sale by one of the most market-efficient artists Damien Hirst, held exactly the next day.
The film tells about the elements of the art market sequentially in chapters: artists, dealers, collectors, auctions, museums, fairs. Quite a lot of dry factography, and in this sense it is very similar to the famous book “How to sell for $12 million stuffed sharks”, which uses a similar scheme of presentation of the material.
If we speak of the economics of art, then the discussion of value, which is most interesting to the Marxist, is inevitable. How are the cost of the painting and the amount of the artist’s labor invested, its aesthetic value related? Contemporary art is the field where the gap between use and exchange value is maximum.
The film clearly shows that this gap embarrasses even the participants of the art market, who earn money in this market. “Things must have a meaning of existence,” says one character. “There are a lot of jobs that don’t have to exist.” Another says, meaning use value, of course: “We live in a moment where value is determined by value, when it matters how many stars buy you.” Everyone generally agrees that to determine use value through exchange is a vicious path that diverts art from its meaning.
What does the cost gap mean? There are interesting effects, and there is a lot of room for fraud. For example, the film explains the scheme of mutual acceleration of the value of the artist: when through his involvement in a fashion gallery, the price of his paintings catches up to the limit, after which the artist himself becomes in demand - artificial creation of demand.
“We’ve created a bubble of contemporary art,” one character admits. A bubble is when value grows faster than GDP, and in the art market prices have only risen rapidly since the 50s. The film lacks a normal analysis of why this is happening and what is associated with it (we risk assuming that with increasing inequality and the need for the super-rich to find a successful investment for their super-profits, as well as with the convenience of offshore money laundering through unsubstantiated value of paintings).
Who is suffering from this whole situation? It would seem that some rich people are suffering, as the characters of the film say: “We are cheating on Arab sheikhs and Russian oligarchs.” Therefore, it is believed that the authorities do not pay attention to the art market. But as the film rightly puts it, the state didn’t feel it necessary to regulate what happened on the stock exchange in 2008, and what did it lead to?
The basic morality here is that we are moving away from the original understanding of what art is and why it is needed. We all suffer, our culture suffers. Profit obsession is wrong. State regulation of the art market is necessary because fraud and corruption are rampant. Such a social democratic morality under the curtain of the film.
On the same topic, I can recommend “Everything has a price” (2018), I liked it more.
6 out of 10