When we look at a work of contemporary art, perhaps a completely blank canvas or an installation made of ordinary objects, we often ask ourselves a question: is it really art? But who has the authority to decide what can be defined as such?
This question is at the heart of a debate that has been going on in the art world for decades and perhaps centuries, but which today, in the age of marketing and social media, is even more heated.
What then makes a work of art truly a work of art? A prestigious signature, the approval of a critic, commercial success or the emotion it arouses in the viewer?
Whereas in the past academies and critics had the final say, today the landscape is much more fragmented, with influences ranging from international markets to social media. In this post I explore the different forces at play – institutions, market, audience – and question who really has the power to define what is art.
WHO DECIDES WHAT IS REALLY ART AND WHAT IS NOT?
The role of institutions and critics
Historically, academies, critics and galleries have had the task of determining what deserved to enter the pantheon of art. These often authoritative and influential figures guided tastes and trends, defining the parameters of what was ‘valid’ or ‘worthy’ of attention.
However, the art world formed by institutions, critics and art historians was often criticised and accused of being elitist and remote from the public.
Works approved by a small group of experts do not always find acceptance among ordinary viewers, leading to a divide between ‘high art’ and ‘popular art’. It often happens, in fact, that what the critics consider a masterpiece for the public is an incomprehensible mass of shapes and colours.
The Market: Art as an Investment
In recent decades, the art market has become increasingly central in defining the value of a work of art. Million-dollar auction records and the growing influence of international auction houses such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s have turned art into a luxury good, often only accessible to the super-rich.
This phenomenon has fuelled the perception that the value of a work is more related to its price than to its artistic content. Works by emerging artists or independent movements are in danger of being overshadowed by productions that respond more to the logic of the market than to creative ones.
Creating a cultural narrative has always been important, but it is even more important today when communication takes place via social media. If you want to learn more about this topic, I recommend reading Telling culture on social: why is it important to create content?
Audiences and the age of social media
Today, however, the judgement of the public is increasingly influential. Thanks to social media, artists who would once have been ignored by the traditional system can find their space and build a global reputation. The number of likes, shares and followers can become a measure of success that competes with, and sometimes exceeds, institutional recognition.
In the age of social media, the way an artist presents himself online, for example, can make all the difference. In fact, if you are looking for effective strategies, here are 6 tips for using social if you are an artist.
However, this new scenario is not without its problems. Virality often rewards visually appealing or provocative works, to the detriment of more complex and less ‘Instagrammable’ creations.
The question then is: can artistic value be reduced to an algorithm?
If it used to be art critics, historians, and collectors who decreed the success of a work of art and decreed that it had the right to be placed in that small group in which so-called masterpieces are found, everything has now been replaced by social media and the number of likes and hearts assigned to an image.
The artist as narrator of his time
Regardless of who holds the power to define what art is, one thing is certain: art remains a universal language for narrating the world and its transformations.
From the caves of Lascaux to the avant-garde movements of the 20th century, every era has produced works that were at first contested or misunderstood, but over time have acquired an undisputed status.
Perhaps there is no single answer to the question ‘who decides what is art?’.
The beauty of art lies precisely in its ability to stimulate discussion, challenge certainties and challenge conventions.
While the definition of art was once decreed by institutions and experts who were considered the repositories of absolute truths, today it is more fluid than ever. The plurality of voices and perspectives can enrich the artistic landscape, but only if we are willing to put ourselves on the line as conscious spectators and critics.
And you, what do you think? Who should decide what is art?
Leave your comment and join the debate!