Assessing value in the arts has always been a contested issue. Arguments recognize the same or different art for reasons that augment developing perspectives in the historical dialogue. Recently, this Hegelian orthodoxy has shown itself to be a good-old-boy network of art professionals whose first priority is to guard the prestige of established institutions.

When postmodern theorists de-emphasized the art encounter to focus on definable attributes of art, it was not coincidental that they strengthened the role of critics and scholars and created a self-contained system of value in support of the art market. It was in their best interest to distill art's content into discursive containers. Galleries want mediated expression. Corporate investors are not buying art that evokes a response. They seek recognizable name and resale value, and the prestige and status of owning esoteric art.

Substituting monetary value and critical endorsement for the value of the art encounter was a capital idea that set a dangerous precedent. With bureaucracy pulling the purse strings, succeeding in art became a financial proposition. There is little regard for content. The radical spirit alive in the art environs of 19th century France and briefly in the postwar New York has succumbed to elitist ideologies.

The methodological conformity of mainstream art runs contrary to the revolutionary spirit. The art is steeped in critical rhetoric to a fault. The essential distinction between art and criticism has been lost. The artist and critic, while sharing in the brotherhood of aesthetics, are by necessity in an antagonistic relationship. Neither discipline really learns or develops by fulfilling the other's expectations. This is not how it works. When artist and critic find themselves on the same side of the fence, they are blind to the assumptions they hold in common.

The art bureaucracy first serves itself, not art. It is self-sustaining, and exploits art for its own purposes. Mainstream galleries and the art bureaucracy are depressingly political. Too often, it is who you know and your willingness to submit to gallery demands that determine success. As the result of talent and circumstance, a few artists enter the mainstream in a big way. Their careers are soon reduced to the production of commodities with a particular look or style. The future of art is directed by critics and gallery directors that censor the enigmatic to reflect the values of an established clientele.

While the exploitation of artists by the art bureaucracy is subject to criticism, artists support existing inequities by their involvement. For the artist to create meaningful art in the 21st century, he must stand outside class stratification and oppose the commodification of art. Revolution in art has become a force of resistance. The vanguard artist must be secure in his own acts of subversion and defiance. The frustration with the priorities of the art market will eventually force artists to seek alternate forms of esoteric and public art.

Do not expect a significant new movement to emerge from the current coalition of artists and institutions. Any avant-garde attempt to restructure art's ideological priorities while producing commodities for the established market is destined to be assimilated with little effect. In order to affect change, art must gain critical and public recognition without being assimilated as commodity or historical object. Also, it cannot be so obscure as to be indecipherable by the educated art audience. It must be understood as subverting the conditions that have reduced art to dollars and sense.