CLEVE GRAY
360
that truth is no longer involved in the artistic process determines
his conviction that art has become no more than a medium of
economic exchange. And as a further result of this exclusive
materialism, art can no longer have any contemplative value;
and he insists that artists should make only art that does not
demand contemplation. Art, he says, has lost all of its former
functions.
In
many respects, Baudrillard is wrong. But his main
error is his belief that art has no use at all, his failure to recognize
that art continues to be used universally for political purposes, not
to speak of spiritual ones, as well as increasingly to attain social
status. At any rate, true or not, Carrier recognizes the profound
and widespread effect of Baudrillard's theory upon current visual
arts; paraphrasing one of Baudrillard's conclusions, Carrier says,
"Art works have become nothing more that consumer goods,
and only self-deception permits us to consider that today there
can be anything more to art."
Furthermore, Baudrillard says, "The only significant re–
maining question about art is its role in the system of exchange."
Baudrillard doesn't even believe that art satisfies any human
need. And since art has no function at all, yet since there never–
theless does exist a market for it, one should learn why and how
this market operates.
As
our media well recognizes, a portion of
the public is fascinated with the workings of this market; obvi–
ously artists, dealers, collectors, critics, and museums are deeply
involved, since these workings have become an independent
force, a force which, ironically, has replaced attention to the
work of art itself-something like the heat from a firestorm that
generates its own winds. So much of the art we are shown today
gains its notoriety from what it tells us about the art market; for
the art market accepts everything into it, from grocery goods in
corrugated cartons to propaganda slogans in flashing lights.
Carrier is far more thorough in his analysis than I can indi–
cate here and does such a fine job of dispersing the fog of
Baudrillard's opinions that I feared he might be sympathetic to
them. So I was relieved to read his concluding paragraphs which
refute Baudrillard's theories: "One man's prescription is another
man's nightmare; and, for me, nothing could be more repulsive
than an art world which Baudrillard's theory accurately de–
scribes."
