This week the art blogs have been abuzz with the continuing critique of the art market. Somehow it seems we've reached the critical point and the hot air that filled the critical balloon has now escaped. Finger pointing is all the rage. Gallerists blaming artists, collectors blaming artists, museums blaming artists, and artists blaming artists - the list of artistic culpability is long and thick like a cucumber shoved into a 70's swinger's tight pants - when duplicity is discovered it's always a disappointment for all concerned.
Donald Kuspit the insider's insider has detailed a lengthy article on the market. This following Jerry Saltz, Charlie Finch & Paul H-O's artnet articles on the subject. Kuspit puts it right on the line with this obeservation..."I suggest that as the political credibility and economic power of the United States declines and the political credibility and economic power of China grows -- as Shanghai overtakes New York and even London and Frankfurt as a commercial center -- the art produced in the United States will lose economic and artistic value while the art produced in China will gain economic and artistic value, with a few art administratively enforced exceptions. The market goes where there is growth rather than stagnancy." Rem Koolhaus has said as much about innovative architecture with China being the proving ground for every major western architectic with huge ambitions. This heavy critique being thrown down by Artnet is mindblowing and Walter Robinson the magazine editor should be commended. Artnet has been one of the main recipients of the art world's recent largess and his editorial freedom in the face of thousands of paying clients is amazing.

IN the artists' world the debate continues. A favorite of mine is Edward Winkleman who runs a gallery in Chelsea. It's tough to watch someone with such conflicting needs and desires make his way through this beast. On the one hand he is a dedicated theoretician and he loves the art he shows - on the other he wants to defend what he does for a living at this time when that living has become inured to the high end retail experience of post-industrial culture. His contention is the market starts with us - the artists - and we are to blame for the way things look and work. I agree with this up to a point, but in the end artists don't determine the market. The corporate selling structures were formed in order to create markets for goods and that was done by the moneymen in museums, auctionhouses, galleries and art fairs. No artist worth her salt would have ever made this current system of suit and tie economics.

So what will all this mean - obviously change is in the air - people are fed up with what they are looking at and artists are fed up with taking the horseshit. New ideas are fermenting and it's high time.