Dear Diamantis,

I can see that there are three statements and a question in your post:

1.statement: the role of arts market is ... instead...stops the procedure... increase sales' index.
2.statement: the most important role of contemporary art...
3.statement: the key role of arts ...

Question: is it possible for the art objects to be created & performed only for the pleasure of their creators?

Each one of the above consists a huge subject for discussion.

Nevertheless allow me to take the risk to comment, that your statement:
"the most important role of contemporary art should be to assist the artists to communicate as effectively as possibly with the rest of the world" is in controversy with the question that "wants" the art object to exist only for the creators...

I would like very much to discuss the subject "The commercialization" of art, and also I wonder why do you differentiate the role of art and contemporary art ..." Since the most important role of contemporary art should be"...

Dromon

I think the role of art is enjoyment above communication.

But to stay on the topic: the commercialization of art surely must lead to more art being created. It generates revenue for the artists and the dealers and often takes art out of public display which leads to more art being created. Many artists rely on selling pieces to be able to afford to buy more materials and keep production going. If art wasn't bought and sold, then the same pieces would be shared around and less art would be created. Sale is the lubricant that keeps the cogs of the art world in motion.

My mind is overheated by the width and the number of the stated topics:

#The role of arts market
#The role of (contemporary) art
#Art objects only for creators "view"
#The role of art in culture
#The impact of the mass-productioned, fast-food, served as art-objects, in our every day life
#The effects of the commercialization of art
#Sale is the lubricant that keeps the art world in motion

I will try to deal separately with each one of these:
Diamantis stated:

"According to my judgement, the role of arts market is simply promoting subculture and an unhealthy environment, instead of assisting contemporary art"

The role of arts market (and of every market) is to make money.
In addition, to make money with the less effort needed.
As a market it has all the elements, methods and characteristics of marketing (suppliers, target group, promotion, e.t.c.).
Diamantis' more or less angry statement is absolutely correct!
Art market, like food market, are simply promoting unhealthy (yet "gorgeous" products), instead of assisting people have a more healthy nutrition for body and mind...
WHY?

Allow me to jump to the 6th topic (commercialization of art):

Fatalmuse stated:
"The commercialization of art surely must lead to more art being created"

Few years after second W.W., the unbelievable numbers of records sold by Elvis, attracted businessmen from different branches. They realize that profits from "show business" were much higher than theirs. So they "immigrate" or just expanded their enterprises into the particular field. ( Sweden is famous for it's steel quality and production. During the ABBA pop group "fever", the Swedish government had more income from the taxes of ABBA records, than from the steel commerce!) .
These people of market, brought in music the rules of the market, which very briefly are: Sales through promotion!
The old process, that a talented musician had to perform, and if he is good enough, day by day he should build a spreading reputation, passed away!... research and development department, demanded that talent seekers will hunt, find the "prey" and quickly make him an idol in order to sell.
From the other side, like a product, artist and his objects of art, cannot sell for a long time (like a car model, soaps, dental creams e.c.t.), they must be replaced after a while by something more attractive... and so on...
Through this process, the artist and his inspiration, transformed into consuming objects.
In addition after a while, research & devlopment section, in order to have more guaranteed sales, desided that they cannot count on talents and their seekers. They should take care of "talent construction" and further more, they will deside and manipulate the kind of music heard!!!
This happened not only with music, yet with fine, the other performing arts (and unfortunately in every possible aspect of our life).
So, the commercialization of art, surely leads to more "dazzling, superficial, short-lived , commercial, confusing glamour fast food" art being created.
The few exeptions, confirm the facts...
Sales is the lubricant that keeps the pockets of (art, arm, or any kind of dealers), full.
To be continued...

Dromon

If artists wish for their art to communicate, then they should not allow them to be employed in manners that are non-communicative.

That is the point of the market: owners must consent to another's use of their good, be it through trade or gift.

Ultimately, in a market scheme, it is the producer that denigrates the product the lowly level of commodity, not the market itself.

The role of any market is to facilitate the exchange of scarce goods.

Markets can exist without money and there is no reason that one cannot exchange in the market without a profit motive.

We would never know the names "Mozart" and "Rembrandt" if there were no art markets. Artists support themselves by selling art.

What seems to be the issue here is the ideological disconnect between the romanticism for "purity" in art and the need for commercialization of commodities. The stereotype of the starving artist who never "sold out" is not and never has been the truth of what is now considered "fine art". As Aedes said we would never know about these artists were it not for markets, and patrons. There is a bohemian idealism of artistic purity and revulsion capitalism, yet Andy worhol said, "Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art." and "Why do people think artists are special? It's just another job."
Artists understand that there will always be a compromise between the art, the artist, and the market. If there were no compromise there would be no art. The market not only supports the artist but it disseminates the art. Art, artists, and markets are a subsystem of society and as it must be is simply an aesthetic branch of the social system.

Art is a form of expression. It is all talk and no listen. Communication is back and forth. Art and communication do have something in common. When each is done right, each is truthful. But, with so much truth for free, who would buy it? Those who have the most money in this world have the least regard for truth. So when they buy art they buy something else, like an investment, or a status symbol, or respectability. Besides, you don't really have it until you can piss it away. And it does not matter how much of their lives your wogs have sweated out in making your money. It is always, Easy come Easy go.

Sam Johnson said money isn't made. It is minted or earned.

Reading again and again the topics, I feel that there is a misunderstanding...

From Diamantis' post, I understood and based my thoughts about "art market" meaning "art dealing - dealers".

From the other posts, I understand that "art market" is the "target group" of the artists!
Am I right or not?

In my own posts, I'm referring to the art market as the whole economy of art including: the artist, the production (creation), the sale, the dealers and the collectors.

Why must all art either be commercial or fine? Why not functional?

The function of art is to be functional in the manner in which it is intended to function. Art made for the purpose of commercial promotion is art with the function of commercial promotion, art made to be a mirror to society is art made to that purpose, art made to express X position or Y philosophy is art made to those ends. Whether the artist has to get a second job or is supported by a patron or by commercial endeavor or is an acedemic doesn't matter, it all boils down to the balance of will and necessity.

To ask somthing like 'What is the Function of Art?' is akin to asking the function of writing and expecting a singular answer that fits your aesthetic view of the matter.

One might say for instance that art is anything in any medium that serves X purpose. Since all the propositions fit this you could say that everything in any medium that is in a sense creative is then art, and you would not be wrong. Art is subjective, you might take any vantage of its possible definitions and you would still be right, though not as right as you would be to take them all.

In conclusion nothing is harmful to the arts, only to the proliferation of work done according to what your view of what art should be.

If Art were functional it would have to work well enough to hang onto even when old, and how much time have we for that. My first real job was building pizzas. And I was no artist. But my boss pointed out to me that pizzas are not food, but luxuries and that people who could least afford these luxuries were usually the first to buy them.

If all you can do is make ends meet, you are living in a personal depression. And the same is true of countries and rich folks. The object is not art, but status. And if rich folks are not pissing away money buying only status, but supporting art, and artists; then all the better. It is Thorston Veblin's theory of the Luxury Class. It is conspicuous consumption. If you have the money, use is not what you are looking to buy. Use is what poor people starve for while producing it in quantity. The object of art is a simple one; To say: See this money I got for picking the bones of the poor? It is all as meaningless as a pretty piece of art!

You are quite into the marxist/neo-marxist philosophy aren't you?

Was Veblin a Marxist? One thing I am not into is Idealism. And I have read Marx; and I accept the criticism of Capitalism which I don't think even qualifies as an economy exactly since if better fits the definition of a religion. It is one thing to trade values. People have always done that and will. It is quite another proposition to accept that people motived by what generally are considered to be vices will procuce virtue as a by product.

Nicely put, not quite sure I agree totally, but nicely put.