One is social justification, the other an act of capitalist barbarism. One turned to stocks for fear of rising commodity prices, the other to get rich. One is that they try to protest with as little damage as possible, and the other is that they destroy to get the most economic benefit. Two worlds, two needs. One demands solutions for those who can’t afford the exorbitant gas and heating prices, while the other burns the work of a famous artist and social activist to get even richer.
The news of two women alternately pouring liquid from a soup can into a glass protecting a painting had more resonance than a very circus-style man dressed in a strangely sequined jacket destroying a burning work of art forever. Two worlds, two genders, two different attacks. One coordinated, organized with many other similar events, the other including cocktail.
For a provocative and monetarist artist who would certainly be delighted with the spectacle, some cans of tomato soup uniquely similar to Warhol’s, which he repeated and made famous, pure poetry.
The news doesn’t get deep, it stays in the images, it doesn’t get into the problem. It wasn’t sunflowers, it was a painting from a series of five paintings by the artist, as it was published as if a unique work had not been hacked: 3 paintings with 15 sunflowers and 2 paintings with 12. Frida Kahlo’s work was one of the least known, a non-repetitive, unprotected drawing called Ominous Ghosts. Provocation about the destruction of art flared up. Some go before the judge for damaging the protective glass, while others do nothing because the glass is his. Art has property.
Is art right? Yes, it has always been, what is a work of art if it does not create a reaction in front of the viewer? Any work should convey something to the viewer. If the arts were used as propaganda for power, should the masses use them to reveal their view of the world and their suffering? Should art be loved and protected, or should it be allowed to be released and destroyed in order to make faster money? It’s awkward, as it were, to let these actions pass without thinking.
the utility of art
In the art containers called museums, in those safes or in the owners of the works, besides the security measures, it is necessary to think about the benefit of art, what does it mean to have it? The concept of 18th-century museums, the public display of artistic beauty, was distorted.
These movements of a few days ago should not be left under the influence of either the soup or the fire. Art or Fine Arts should have the functions of not only effect but also pleasure, pleasure and emotion. We’ve seen for a long time how monetization from the arts has increased.
Fairs, auctions announce the value of the most expensive works to the public and forget to reveal their artistic features, details and meanings, and include the discourse that the works are purely sales items. Then the reactions are not because of its beauty, but because of its economic value, because of the desire to possess the unattainable.
Art has always needed money, the artist lives from it, but work occupied a preferential place and today it seems to be the opposite.