An Overview of Art Marketing with Philosophy


Man is a creature with unlimited desires, and unlike animals, he is not satisfied only with the satisfaction of his biological needs. If we are going to talk about a feeling of satisfaction in the full sense, we need to refer to our collective subject "art", which is of secondary interest to us after religion among these needs.

There is an audience that follows art. This mass is divided into several folds. Those in the first part are business people whose desires are provoked by economic wealth and who run after works without knowing what to do.
There is of course an art marketing audience that created this. Artworks representing the highest level of creativity had to be presented as "things" that could directly produce "material wealth" in order to be of value to the newly rich, and they were presented.

This first and most dangerous group is a piece of bad taste, which uses the power of money, is open to misdirection, and chooses the works with the logic of merchants. They form collaborators in an interesting socio-economic investment that gives money and devalues ​​the business it buys. This audience generally tends to buy paintings and follow the local or foreign artist who is popular that year. The reason why this audience is unappealing is not the choices they made, but the choices they could not make. Among the choices he could not make; There are many things we can count, such as never reading Shakespeare in his life, not stopping to think about Macbeth, not watching the ballet Swan Lake. It is perhaps the most expensive Scotch whiskey he drinks, but he is unaware of the Scottish Symphony, which Mendelssohn was influenced by and wrote after his visit to Scotland. He sees Yves Kleen paintings, but the motto of his art is; He was not shaken by the sentence "My works are only the ashes of my art." While this pocket-full audience can show the ability to follow the crowd between the galleries for 5 seconds and pass through the tables, it cannot show the same skill in watching Rimski-Korsakov's Glinka. Because his soul maybe not his body was trained for it. I'm including the body because limbs that aren't convinced it's good for their soul will struggle to leave the room quickly. These are perhaps the mass in the pit of Hell in Dante's Divine Comedy.

There is a second fold, which consists of those who have been left in limbo. It is the condescending mass that sneers at all the work done. Here they criticize works and their participants intermittently and indefinitely. Underneath this criticism is their intellectual development, which they did not catch on time and later could not accept. All the good things done because they can't improve themselves are to participate in the first 15 minutes and then despise them. They pass on the rudeness of their souls by affirming with their minds.

This constitutes the gangrenous part of our society. We can neither completely escape nor win. We have to deal with a mass that satirizes and provokes all the good things that are done.

We have individual attitudes towards art, just as the way to God is as many as the number of his servants, the way to art is as many and varied as the number of those who follow it. The problem begins here, a mass that has no aesthetic value and no principles of taste. So how do we get over this? Is it the mind that counts, as the Cartesians and, in parallel, the theorists of French classicism thought, or is it the "elegance" of feeling and heart, as the current, more and more openly asserted, throughout the eighteenth century, originating in English empiricism as well as Pascal?

For those in Purgatory, this conflict finds its way into the works that continue in the market, without breaking the popular and classical philosophy.

Is the situation of this mass an imitation of a truth in which the mind is opened, or is it the manifestation of the inexpressible enthusiasms of the heart?

When this question leads us to a higher philosophical problem, of course, we find Kant. Kant found out how the new aesthetic could resolve issues such as common taste and objectivity of criteria without reducing the judgment of taste to scientific judgment. Following a familiar path, Kant reveals the conflict in question in two ways. The first of these is "everyone has his own taste": This expresses the confusion of the beautiful with the pleasant and explains that the judgment of taste is a purely subjective matter and does not impose a mandatory acceptance for someone else. I think I can find the answer to my own criticism here. The second generally accepted point is that “Pleasures cannot be argued with”. This is a more complex statement than the first. It assumes that the judgment of taste cannot be proved with evidence, arguments based on certain scientific terms, even though it contains a claim to universality.

We live in an increasingly Nietzschean 'world' in the field of art; Even if this term doesn't seem quite appropriate, you could at least say that we live in an artificial intellectual environment that is oddly similar to the perspectivism portrayed by Nietzsche. As “perspective, small worlds”, works of art have created a world that everyone can access, see and buy even if they don't understand.

As a result, as Nietzsche said;

'' Tastes and colors are indisputable...
yet that's all we do! ''


Your email address Will not be published.