$450 Million Contemporary Art Butthurt
"Salvator Mundi", Leonardo da Vinci. Image via Wikipedia and in the public domain.An Old Master painting, from da Vinci, “Salvator Mundi”, sold for $450.3 million, obliterating the high for any work of art sold at auction, more than double of the previous king, Picasso. Oh, how the modern art chickens are squawking right now, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
It is well known how in the current art establishment, critics, museums and universities, view anything of a classical bent as an anachronism, because that is the past and no longer relevant. The proof of course, is argued by the prices contemporary art fetches on the market.
It is well known how corrupt the art market is with insider trading to pump the prices. There are many practices in the art market that if were played out in standard markets, would see you doing time in jail. So it is largely a world of fiction.
Then along comes a very nasty surprise and that fiction is popped. The contemporary art world spin doctors are now very busy disparaging the sale and busy attempting to spread FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt), lest money start flowing away from their pet projects into "unacceptable" art.
If you think we live in a cultural world of free expression, think again. When was the last time you saw major contemporary museums mount an exhibition on the current trends in contemporary figurative painting? Anything that requires true skill is denigrated as craft and irrelevant. Most forbidden of all, is something that might look vaguely beautiful. Ugly and banal is the politically correct standard.
Back in the 90's it was revealed that CIA funded modern art as political weapon in the cold war. Now with the rise of new wealth outside the American sphere of influence, China, Russia, ect., other tastes are starting to make their presence felt. As the American empire crumbles, so too will the cultural shilling. While contemporary has its place, it has been hyper inflated in its worth and importance.
Critics of the sale, argue that it is questionable whether da Vinci actually painted. They also cite that the painting damaged.
“This was a thumping epic triumph of branding and desire over connoisseurship and reality,” said Todd Levin, a New York art adviser. This translates as, "How dare people think for themselves, develop their own tastes and spend money on art that we do not support!"
Is not most of the art that we see in today's museums and pushed through the universities, also, "a thumping epic triumph of branding and desire over connoisseurship and reality?”
The da Vinci sale shows us that world is indeed now changing in many ways, and what we assumed is set in stone, is but trend that will come and go as everything else in history. But somethings find favour and return. Others not. Which do and don't, only time will tell.
"Salvator Mundi", Leonardo da Vinci. Image via Wikipedia and in the public domain.
Leave a comment below, upvote and remind if you like it.
