Reasoned Consideration

A brief response to the following point in this comment on this blog: "Artists in the Dada movement purposely countered the established traditions of aesthetically pleasing art because of its irrelevance and bourgeois classicist association. It was the art of the rich who were sheltered from the horrors of war" Consider a graph such as this one : ("Damien Hirst's Spot Prices"), and tell me that modern/contemporary art still represents the common man today, and not the rich. Also, thanks to numerous economic and technological advances, beautiful art IS now within the reach of even lower economic classes. The historical situation has changed - in some senses, reversed. Related: How Contemporary Art Lost Its Glamour : "Suddenly, the press dares to criticise contemporary art. A number of coinciding events seem to have focussed a new, less reverential attitude towards the spin of the art world  ...  Hirst's auction took £70.5 million on the day that ...

Who would have thought, modern/contemporary art training institutions are having some difficulty explaining why they are relevant : "What's the point of art school? ... As changes to the school curriculum and university funding undermine the arts education system, industry experts gather at Central Saint Martin's art school to discuss what the future holds for arts students ... Catastrophic cuts to funding, a drop in applications to university arts courses and the exclusion of the creative arts from the new EBacc performance measure mean now is a difficult time for the arts sector" And yet I think the examples on the article page speak for themselves (and note, contrary to what you might think, these were posted in defense of contemporary art education, with not a trace of irony or apparent self-reflection). "Nowhere Else Could I Do This for Credit" , says the artist, while pondering why the 'contemporary art world' is struggling to explain...