---

“as magic fades”

Polemics on Contemporary Art Conventions

---

                                                                 

“The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, scientist, into its paid wage laborers”.     Marx & Engels, “The Communist Manifesto.”

1.

Today the spirit of art is being overtaken by the spirit of work.

The art market and art institutions work hand in hand to shape an entrepreneurial type of artist. Artists are expected to fully comply with the logic of the “business”, as carrier builders, as project planners, as hyper extroverts, as resilient self-promoters.  


Art practice is losing its essence by aligning too closely with business practices such as  application management, process engineering, fundraising, self-marketing, strategic planning, pragmatic networking, and the like. 


Artists are expected to be “uprising”: already “liked” and approved by some authorities, vibrating visibly success-oriented to become operators of well-planned and well-presented (con)temporary “productions”. 


As art becomes something to manage rather than something to live, as it is increasingly shaped by the logic of project execution, as the space for the instinctive, the impulsive, and the intuitive continues to shrink, as certified legitimacy/  institutional education -diplomas, affiliations, names of mentors and schools- becomes an overstated measure of artistic value, and as rigid professional frameworks make it harder for the new, the raw, and the unexpected to emerge, those who do not fit this logic -those who need art as a refuge, as another world- are gradually pushed to the margins, while originality, authenticity, inexplicable artistic depth, and the value of aura are steadily lost, turning contemporary art increasingly impactless, inorganic, and insular.


(Let’s remember that, today, climate activists gluing their bodies to works of art have far more resonance and impact than any existing artist or work of art.)  


2.

Today, the “spirit of art” is being overtaken by the “spirit of  time.”

The current Zeitgeist is unfortunately painted by neoliberal emperors in colors of indifference, individualism, docility, and cynicism.
The same applies to the art world -even though many artists, artworks, and art events wish/ try/ pretend/ claim to be political and engaged- the existence of art as a cultural force, as a radical transformative presence, as an irreducible essence which is incompatible with the culture industry, is in peril. 

(The 'spirit of the time' is a cultural field continually shaped by competing intentions. An ongoing struggle over the meaning of the Zeitgeist unfolds -subtle at times, but deeply consequential- playing out between dominant narratives and emerging counter-perspectives; between ruling class and people, between emperor and multitude, between universal and particular, between war and peace, between security and freedom, between economy and ecology, between real and dream, between invasive and hesitant, between male and female, between egoistic and social, between rude and kind, between ambition and innocence, between monster and child.)

3.

Today, the contemporary artist is a white-collar worker  -expected to be their own producer, promoter, accountant, therapist, competitor, and manager all at once.
The ideal artist figure under late capitalism (roughly since the 2000s) is someone glued to their computer, constantly filling out application forms, sending emails, posting self-promotional content on social media, expanding their network through a never-ending program of events -and compiling evidence for their CV which shows they have been educated, selected, approved, and validated by the authorities.

A contemporary artist is expected to function like an engineer; executing pre-designed and approved projects, writing concepts for everything, planning thoroughly and implementing accordingly. They are expected to act professionally coherent  (meaning: not personally, emotionally, or sensitively), to be  transparent, communicative and consistently pragmatic to remain resilient in all situations, to network efficiently within events and social circles, preferably to create their work under the supervision of residency programs and workshops, and to maintain good relations with the art authorities.


4.

Today, intuitive, introverted, or sincerely independent artists -those who lack the motivation to exist within the strict framework of contemporary art conventions (e.g., not having completed their studies properly), or those who lack the drive to become entrepreneurial self-managers (e.g., not presenting a long-listed CV), or those who do not prefer to "produce" under institutional supervision- are out of tune with the Zeitgeist and with today’s art funding systems. Alas, they are cast out into the periphery of the art world.

Today, artists who refuse to move through the ritual of constant social engagement or keep up with the unending social momentum; who are unwilling to benefit from networks built on superficial and artificial relationships; who cannot or do not wish to produce under constant external motivation and pressure; who are not eager to seize opportunities or respond to market demands and institutional conventions  -are increasingly losing their chances to survive in the current art world. Not only because they are not supported but also because the opposite is encouraged, rewarded and promoted.


Today, artists who can consistently perform a “healthy” and “pragmatic” persona are crowned with the halo of success at various levels. In contrast, those who cannot conform to narcissistic transparency, competitive behavior, and strategic thinking -those who work purely from intrinsic motivation and refuse to adopt the mindset of the “new worker”- are excluded.

Today, (even if it remains largely unseen) many artists with genuine intellectual and artistic commitment are increasingly filtered out, surreptitiously eliminated and smoothly disqualified!  


Perhaps most importantly this "natural" exclusion or disqualification of the different, unbalanced, unconventional, unhealthy, hesitant, rebellious, independent, or introverted artist character is not only a loss for those artists, it is a vital loss for art itself! 


5.

Today, there is a neglected realıty: from contemporary art to cinema, a particular type of artist is increasingly taking over the field of artistic representation -an artist who “makes a career”, who excels at conforming to norms and maintaining pragmatic communication, who confidently gets things done with ease, often by strictly following the footsteps of the master while operating with minimal intellectual grounding.

The career (or CV) centered notion of success in the art world grants the artist an accumulated power: a capitalist power, a recognized and accepted authority, and a status that functions as surplus value not directly derived from the character, work or the action itself, but rather from the value of value. 


The authority of “name value” elevates its owner independently of their artistic output, generating a kind of capital that is particularly prone to abuse. Here, I would like to point to the figure of the male-prominent artist -often equipped with no intellectual depth but a shiny career and an inflated ego- as an expected contributor to certain social problems. 


Let’s remember (or never forget) the amount of male artists revealed by the Me Too movement. 


6.


One striking feature of the conventional CV-centered value system is the automatic allocation of support (funding) to artists with recent success.


It may seem fair and normal within “objective norms” that an artist who has been successful, active and efficient in recent years should be guaranteed a position in subsequent selections. Yet it is precisely in this way that many of the works we encounter at exhibitions or film festivals are no longer inspiration driven, but mostly strategically cultivated, institutionally hatched, conceptually engineered, curatorially bred and pragmatically incubated. 


Yes, in classic business logic, one major success is expected to lead directly to another. But the logic of art doesn’t work that way. In fact, it's often quite the opposite: after gaining visibility and recognition, only a rare few artists manage to continue creating with the same sincerity and depth as they did in their early work.


When 'professionally intended' artworks are favored and guaranteed to flourish, the aura -and thus the impact- of art begins to fade.


7.

Today, a significant portion of circulation in the art world is determined by juries. On open calls for fundings, residencies, art school entries, film funds, art grants etc various juries decide which artists or artworks are more “relevant” and which are not.

Even if we do not question whether those juries are always "competent", the jury system itself threatens the very essence of art.  Namely, juries create objective norms, conventions and expectations for making judgments. But norms, conventions and objective expectations are at odds with the nature of art. 


This is not to claim that art must constantly strive for the abnormal -but it must, at the very least, breathe outside the tight borders of what is considered normal. The familiar, the expected, the formulaic modes of expression fail to hold the irreducible features of art. So that exhibitions, performances, and so-called activist events that unfold within the safe, sanitized spaces of normalized forms leave little behind -no matter how polished, how provocative, or how perfectly aligned they may be in content.


Regardless of the quality of the group or the authority person, any important decision about art should not be taken by a group or an authority person. Because the spirit of art does not like conventions, limits, and expectations. Art spirit obviously likes to be surprising, different, new, unexpected, sudden, and beyond. 


(If a selection must be made, it could better rely on a blind draw among those who fulfill only the fundamental requirements -nothing more.) 


8.

Another negative contribution of jury-based systems lies in their structural tendency to favor pre-designed projects -well planned and presented in advance.
This leads to a growing predominance of such works, while those that arise spontaneously, intuitively, or unexpectedly are quietly pushed aside.

Here again, we can observe a deeper issue: the transfer of business logic into the field of art -a shift that threatens the very essence of art itself. Business logic is product-oriented, not experience-oriented. Art, on the other hand, relies not only on design and imagination but also on lived experience and direct connection. It draws not only from production but from passive presence -from simply existing. It is nourished by withdrawal, crisis, explosion, and protest too.

Today’s jury-based support systems are gradually distancing artists from unpredictable spontaneity and true experimentation. Artworks, in turn, are increasingly transformed into fully calculated products that follow a clear obeyed logic from start to finish. The fact that these works may appear ideologically ‘outside’ does not change the situation -their energy is evidently too ‘inside,’ too contained, too controlled. 

Especially for those whose creation depends on institutional support granted through application processes. Oh, this over-validation of concepts — and of ideas that must breathe within current trends and satisfy the semi-invisible bosses of the art world: state-employed art bureaucrats, private institution managers, or juries of all kinds. The excessive emphasis on financial planning, the sacred status of the application form, the glorification of time management, the near-religious urgency of deadlines and documentation... It all signals a shift away from art as a lived experience toward art as a perfectly executed task.


Those do not resonate with the essentials of “art spirit” but the maintenance of “new work”. 


Whether we recognize it or not, all types of energies that form the artworks/ art events are embedded in the aura of the works and spread out into the world. 


9.


Today's relevant art conventions do not value originality and authenticity. Many successful artists just follow their master's artistic path with the lack of their own individual, unique, and self-discovered “interest patterns”. This is again another business element that sneaks into the art world.

Also for the sake of “professional consistency” artists are expected to adopt particular topics or particular styles to stay secure in their career. Meanwhile, a great amount of art practices are gradually becoming something not surprising, monotonous, formulaic, sterile, and sometimes even boring.


Exploring other styles, venturing into new fields, or approaching different subjects with curiosity may be seen as weakening one’s position both in the competition and in the market. The successful contemporary artist is expected to advance by capitalizing solely on their previously established references.


However, a vital connection usually does not emerge in places where everything is already known and done. It often arises in the realm of genuine searching and discovery -with the curiosity of a child, a stranger, an alien -or an artist.

10.

Today, the artist -like any other freelancer- lives under the pressure of time. Their entire story unfolds between deadlines and appointments. There is always something to do, always something to catch up on.

The motto is obvious: run, or you fall! 


And just like artists, artworks today exist are also under immense pressure of time. In a system where productivity and visibility are matters of survival for artists, many of the works we encounter are created simply because they had to be made—and completed because they had to be finished within a certain timeframe. 


The fact that such unfinished, unripe works—pieces that haven’t been rested, haven’t found their own endings—are considered “acceptable” within today’s habits of speed and the transient culture of contemporary art does not change the long-term consequence: this tendency gradually undermines the public value of art itself. When the pursuit of “must” and “should” replaces the desire of “want” and “feel,” the essence of art begins to fade. 


The phenomenon of the deadline -a silent yet aura-crushing monster- functions as an imported tool of control. Here is yet another principle imported from hyper-capitalist doctrines of maximum productivity. Deadline based art became an invisible mechanism of discipline, an invisible mechanism of containment that limits the natural rhythm of creation by keeping the system running smoothly, but limiting the effect of art and weakening its right allure at the same time. 


Here, it must be emphasized: The devaluation of art as a means of power, which contemporary art often intentionally embraces, is not the same as the devaluation of art as a language of sensitivity, of tacit expression, of the particular. These are two very different phenomena -one can be a conscious tool of critique, yet the other is a silent cultural erosion. 

 11.

                                                                                                                                                  Today we are witnessing a rapid proliferation of art presentations, however, an incredible decline of their impact. Art in general experiences the crisis of 'overproduction', which is interestingly also the most fundamental “problem” of world capitalism. One of the most important reasons for this “negative booming” is the external motivation for art practice which is created by institutions and the market.

In contrast to capitalist logic, where increased volume typically diminishes value, art should gain meaning through multiplicity, not lose it.


However, in today’s art world, what actually causes devaluation is not the number of artworks being created, but the fact that this production is driven by the capitalist imperative to perform and excel -not by genuine artistic necessity or organic cultural dynamics. 


12.

Today, while the power of art and artists is gradually dissolving within the dominant values of the Zeitgeist, almost no critics, no schools, and barely any artists raise an objection to the semi-visible entrepreneurial trend in art. Unfortunately, economic concerns and the spirit of the time condition us all to try to keep up with this “reality”.


Even though we can understand this adaptation process, I still feel the need to voice this vital yet overlooked matter: 

As artists adapt to the conventions of art institutions and market dynamics fully, they become less authentic, less ingenious, poorer, more dependent, more competitive, more mechanical, more cognitive, more stressful, more distant, more commercial, more callous.

Levent Duran  2025