Just tweeted this, but the whole last two paragraphs are too good not to post. Granted, Corrigall is speaking mostly of the South African art scene, but it applies everywhere, I believe.
“The growth of the commercial sector of the art market since the advent of democracy has seen a power shift in which national and regional public art institutions no longer are the dictating authority on art. Given that many of these institutions were initially sluggish to transform in terms of widening the scope of their curatorial policies to include art and exhibitions of the work of previously marginalised artists, this actuality wasn’t necessarily a negative one – it has in some senses democratised art production, opening up discourses and allowing marginalised artists to enter the fray. Of course, the majority of these new galleries are white owned thus the power relations within this sector has remained skewed.
Because commercial galleries now hold the authority and under-funded public art institutions have become increasingly dependent on corporate funding, the brand of art that is displayed and celebrated is increasingly being determined by commercial factors or to meet the requirements of corporate sponsors. In other words art that might not be critically prized by academia, art producers or critics, is regularly given a pride of place in commercial galleries and other commercial settings such as at an art fair. This democratisation of the arts might have opened the once closed doors of the art world but it also means anyone with enough financial clout can dictate what kinds of art should be valued – often these individuals believe that their affinity for art automatically grants them insider knowledge of contemporary art practice. Thus the intellectual gulf between patrons and the arts intelligentsia is often quite vast.â€
