Art Market and the Institution of Art: Who Decides?

How the Art Market Works

The art market is one of the least transparent markets in the world: lack of standardization, subjectivity in pricing, anonymity of transactions. Annual turnover — about $60 billion (2023). The top 10 artists by sales generate a disproportionate share.

“Institutional theory of art” (George Dickie): a work of art is what the institution of the art world recognizes as such — galleries, museums, critics, collectors. It is not the subjectivity of an individual viewer — it is collective institutional validation.

Auction houses Sotheby's and Christie's — key institutions of this system. Jeff Koons’ “Rabbit” — $91.1 million (2019). “Shot Marilyn” (Warhol) — $195 million (2022). This is not just “the value of the artwork” — it is a financial instrument, a tax haven, a social signal.

Biennale and Global Art

The Venice Biennale (since 1895) — the oldest and most prestigious international exhibition. 90+ countries have national pavilions. This is not just an artistic but also a political event: which country is invited, who represents their country, what narrative — all are politically charged.

“Biennalization” of contemporary art — a global network of exhibitions (Documenta in Kassel, Istanbul, São Paulo, Havana). This created “world art” — but critics note: globalization of art often means exporting the Western curatorial perspective, rather than genuine diversity.

Decolonization of museums: questions about the return of artifacts. Benin Bronzes (UK, Germany); Elgin Marbles (UK/Greece); Egyptian artifacts across worldwide museums. This is not only a moral issue — it is a question of who has the right to cultural identity.

Question for reflection: Koons and Warhol turned art into a financial instrument. How does financialization change culture: NFT, collecting, artist branding? What is lost when cultural value is entirely determined by the market?