Date: 2026
Author: Martim Brion
“The presumably enlightened rich, who support art in this century as every other, have relapsed into self-indulgence; their aesthetically ascetic period is past with no young Picasso in sight, they have found the courage to ask once more for the kind of art they really like: give us the romantic, the realistic, the deceptive, the immediately erotic, and the chic. It fits us better, mirror us better, and moves us quicker. Since we pay for art, we have the right to the kind we want.”
– Clement Greenberg
Human society is a hierarchical one; if one looks now throughout the world, one does not find equal societies beyond a certain dimension, and within these societies, there are always trappings of authority and inequality. Marx was right that there is a social conflict; he was just wrong in thinking that the class struggle of his time applied to all societies and throughout time. But that there is always a power dynamic within society and between different societies, countries, empires, etc., is undeniable. Hence, there is a pecking order; we are always sorting everything within this pecking order, which varies within each culture.
Humans always move through the path of least resistance unless they attain a certain modicum of superiority and sustainability. Once that takes place some practices start to be done just for pure pleasure or abstractions – meaning, for instance tradition, religion, moral desires, prejudices, and philosophy. This independence from practicality can be seen in banquets and feasting or ways of dressing through early history, or later on, types of homes, from huts to palaces and the use of art. These abstractions, or, better put, sublimations, have reached new heights over the last 200 years since the Industrial Revolution. It has also been throughout time a way of distinguishing oneself by having culture and appreciating or making art, writing, and playing music or leading a different lifestyle, such as monks or other religious practices. This differentiation also has a hierarchical part, and most people continue to not adhere to high levels of abstraction and “high culture”. In postmodernism there was a brief desire to make it mainstream. Nonetheless, we are currently returning to the norm, as culture is appreciated, and more widely so than ever, but only mostly at a lighter level. Highbrow is even considered suspect by the majority of the population, as it always has been; as it dwells too much in abstraction, it seems too sure of its superiority or makes one more aware of one’s inferiority of knowledge or at least makes one understand how little we all know as individuals and even as a species. It shows how insignificant and confused we all are. Not to mention that intellectuals are blamed, and rightly so, for many of the excesses of the 20th century.
Artificial Intelligence is now the great new frontier. For the first time, help at an intellectual level will be cheap and plentiful. Everyone will have their own personal assistant, teacher, researcher, and so on in their pocket. Once again, the need to have culture and knowledge is relegated to those who enjoy acquiring and preserving it. However, it is undeniable that society is better equipped intellectually. There are more university graduates than ever before; there are more books sold than ever before, and knowledge has never been so disseminated and easily accessible as now, and people are healthy and learned enough to be able to access and use it, or, one dares say, enjoy it. Two main problems relating to this positive state of affairs have been how to accommodate all these graduates while societies have very slow growth, and how to teach people critical thinking in order to be open but able to differentiate between what is good knowledge and just propaganda and suspicious theories, or better, critical thinking. One sees this in art with the explosion of practising artists, new galleries, websites selling art, and so on and so forth. And then, how people are or are not able to navigate and differentiate between all these options. Of course, more does not mean better, but it surely increases the probability of quality being produced. However, it also increases confusion. This leads us again to the state of the art. How is art then evaluated in a hierarchical world? Well, currently, I would argue it is mostly down to the most common denominator – money. What sells most, what is fashionable. And not what sells most in total, but what sells most to people who are taste-makers. Recently, figuration has again become fashionable. Painting and drawing still are the media in art-making that sell the most. Most probably due to its practical aspects (the human tendency of least resistance), it is light and hangs on a wall, which is where most buyers have space to display art, but also due to it being the type of art most people can see in museums, it has the highest recognition and physical value. There is also a positive cycle effect here at work. As humans, the more we see something or even someone, or engage in a certain practice, the more we get used to it, and the more we tend to value it. The same happens to novels, to music, to types of food, and so on. We are the ultimate imitators. By imitating, we create. Another point is that art mirrors society and its struggles. Present art is confusing because it is made in the present, not necessarily because there is a crisis, which can also be the case, but because the present is confusing. It is very hard to understand which phase in relation to the past and the future one is in when one is in it; we could be heading towards the third World War right now, but it would be hard to tell until it is clearly upon us. By looking back, we can study what happened and organise it. We are backward organisers, not forwards. We can plan for the future, but we never know exactly what it will bring. Too many factors are at play. This ignorance makes us more frustrated but can also be a source of joy and renewal. Might just be because we have not gotten there scientifically yet. Back to the point. If the present is a state of confusion, and probably this one more so than past ones, firstly, it is the present; secondly, we can clearly infer that there is a big shift on going: population decline, big movements of people, technological and scientific advances, possibly also sociological ones.
What can we thus infer with our limited capabilities (or at least I with mine) from the state of the art, art the ultimate mirror and filter of society’s mind? I would argue we are more open to all sorts of approaches to art, even though the classic ones still predominate. We like simple, direct messages; we like short bursts; long, drawn-out affairs have gone the way of cooking for hours. We feel that we need to be individuals and express this individualism; that genius in art is still there, but this genius needs not to be too forward but coy; he needs to think of the other, a socially conscious genius. Important topics, or at least the ones that seem important at this current time, need to be addressed, or at least mentioned. Total freedom is not understood, as it is something too frightening and possibly without much mooring to be understood or appreciated, as it is unabashedly individualistic. This has been the art until now. Exactly when I cannot say. But it seems to be already the art that is quickly becoming the past (again, the problem of pinning the present and predicting the future). Current political changes, and social preferences, and wars are already tearing this recent past apart; the assumptions are changing. Now what will happen, I cannot tell, but what remains constant is the same – change. And we are in for a strong dose of it.
This exhibition – a small speck of sand on the beach of art-making – vies to address this idea of change and hierarchical values in a visual form. Different artists, with different approaches, in dialogue. How to rank the work being presented? How to think about it in relation to one another? Do these works transmit messages? And if so, which ones? Is this all a mirror of societal discourse and evolution? I would argue yes, but in what way? Confusion about grading this visual dialogue ensues. But does it need grading, and if so, in relation to what? Picasso and Cezanne? How to say it: they had a different focus; they only became shelved or categorised years later. The abstract expressionists, only when most were dying away. They were mostly focused on abstract concepts related to their works to the point of feeling. Can one imagine feeling in von Duisburg’s approach? Or Le Corbusier’s? Definitely in Rubens, but another sort of feeling, possibly exaltation, possibly the craving of voluptuous flesh. A roller coaster of approaches with different aims. They can all be compared, but their time of execution is important, and remember, it is the past. The present is confusing; let’s embrace this confusion and think about it critically. What concept is behind the artwork? What material? What technique? All are important. The beauty of it is really to look at an exhibition and
Martim Brion 