Apparently, it seems the establishment is willing to make the world of art like a world of absolute freedom. I would say: a world of anarchy.

But then, I realize this so called anarchy constitutes an advantage but only for the artistic establishment and art investors/speculators. Artists remain like the rest of the working class. A mass of precariopus, underpayed, low income, exploited human being. Yes, there are exceptions, maybe a thousands of them joined the

Those artists are like “cleaners of the gas chamber”. Human being has the unfortunate tendency to serve the power in any way.I think it’s the same condition for millions of artists on the planet, because artists too has to pay bills.

Artist is an extremely emotional and sensitive human being, he feels to fight the cultural conformism that surrounds his  existence. This condition should be reflected within his artistic production. That’s why artworks should have always political contents, because politics and arts are like coffee and milk: they are different but tends to keep together anyway. As an artist that dedicates his life to art, I have the duty to keep that intellectual balance in my works.

The question is: is there real freedom for the artist? If for a free world we intend a world without rules, the richest and the arrogant will take power anyway and  that is what happened to contemporary arts today. Freedom today is an illusion feeded by globalized consumerism.

The rich man makes a rich gallery, publish rich art magazine and pays rich sums to art critics, with the task to turn stupid things into works of art. This work of art then is bought by the same galleries with their own (rich) art collectors and pretty reviews written by magazines owned by the same collectors.

Somebody calls these people lobbyst, i would prefer them to be called financial mobsters.

Contemporary art became a good way to make money laundering, future investments, economic bubbles similar to those made for the banking system.

Like banks, art traders deals with mediocrity, and mediocrity become art for the sake of financial investments. But since banks collapsed and financial investments too, this fluffy art came back to be what it used to be: mediocrity. Infact, Picasso, Monet, De Chirico or Van Gogh never had any difficulties to be sold – while Hirts and Koons might still sell but anybody with enough  knowledge will recongnize how cheap their art is.

Contemporary arts reflects what the contemporary world, a world made with no identities whatsoever, what counts is only a controlled business made by specified esthetics and specified poor contents that must be the same everywhere, like a CocaCola can.

For the frst time in history, artist gets into a world of art that is already planned and structured following not what artists want but what galleries are requiring.

So the artisti s just another small part of a big engine where finale and business leads the culture…

Artist has lost touch with their freedom and desire, he has to learn the part like an actor on the stage.

What is art then? Is it just visual communication? Or is communicating contents to our senses?

And what about contents? People says that politics and political culture are boring. Why is that? Maybe because we are trained and educated to think just the necessary to go through the day? I think so, I think that popular culture is under narcotics because we’ ve got disinterested about almost everything concern the social and political information. Art is needed also for this reason: gettino people back to politcs in order to engagè with social daily issues.

Fabio Coruzzi