Karla Marie M.

Rosendo Arts 1-H

2018-03537 May 7, 2019

REFLECTION PAPER ON “BLURRED LINES: INSIDE THE ART WORLD”

The documentary entitled “Blurred Lines: Inside the Art World” gives clarity to the blurry lines
we perceive in the art world. There are various misinterpretations about what really is happening
to the art world, particular to the art market. Some people often perceive the art world as a simple
institution, yet the documentary revealed the fallacies in the artworld. Wherein, if an artwork is
being put in the art market implies both positive and negative connotations. It somehow affects
not merely the artwork but the people and the institutions who are involved with it.

The documentary shows that the definition of art varies from one person’s perspective to another’s
perspective depending on the social group they belong to. It differs from the point of view of the
artist, dealer, gallerist, collector and society. Thus, art is indeed too complex to define and too
broad to comprehend.

Glenn Lowry, MOMA Director stated that same art in different places can mean different things.
These places he is referring to are these institutions that contribute in the dissemination of an
artwork like museums, galleries and art fairs. Lowry believes that art makes it way through these
public institutions. This is indeed not arguable because it tends to do so. However, Vicky Ward, a
journalist, argued that when an artwork is placed in a gallery or an auction, some buy it because
they like it, yet some buy it just because of the social competitiveness. They treat the artwork as a
mere trophy winning contest. Hence, it somehow taints the true value of an artwork and replace it
by monetary value. Christian Viveros-Fauné stated that an artwork should be critical socially and
culturally yet if number of zeros has been attached to it, that criticality falls back. Thus, if an
artwork in a cultural group has been commercialized, it somehow taints its significance. It is like
disrespecting not only the artwork but the culture that is affiliated to that artwork.

Apparent to this, Marina Abramovic, an artist, stated that “If you will sell them – these artworks
for 150 million dollars, you will never look at them again, and you will never see its true value”.
In my perspective, artist who voluntarily sells their artwork for a large sum of money diminish
their artistic reputation. Artist should make art to express something valuable – a significant
meaning to the society. Artist should not merely care for their artwork to be placed in prestigious
gallery and museums just for someone to buy it – but for someone to be moved by it. The artwork
of an artist should create relationship to the viewer; and placing it in certain institutions such as
gallery is not bad as far as the intention is correct. However, if artist merely care for the large sum
of money and it is what motivates him then the real value of the artwork is vague, it diminished
their dignity as an artist.

As I stated, the documentary shows the advantages and disadvantages of these mechanisms such
as the people, network and institutions involved in the art world. I cannot argue that art market is
necessarily to be there for the art to be promulgated to reach a variety of people. Art market
including the artist, dealers, collectors, galleries, museums and art fairs really contributes in the
proliferation of art. Artists’ artworks that are placed in galleries and institutions to have greater
impact and to influence the people is not totally a bad idea. Also, I cannot argue that these
commercialization helps the artist to make a living same as to the dealers, galleries and museum’s
staffs.

However, even if it proliferates art by reaching out the society, it is still limited because of the fees
required in such private galleries. As stated in the documentary, the art market is merely for those
rich people that is why there is no need for it to be regulated. Though museums are public
institutions meaning it is free, it is still limited because not all people have the time to go. Also, it
constrains the proliferation of art by the means of tainting the art’s value as mentioned above.
However, I still believe that art does neither totally lose nor diminish its value despite of some
nasty policies in art world.