Mr. Hirst, are you reading my blog?

Every era of art brings artist in its own avatar.

For instance during renaissance, artist was seen as genius, during Impressionism, artist was an inventor, Cubist were quasi scientists, Dada-s were rebels, Surrealists were Mavericks,Abstractions-its were philosophers and Pop artists were celebrities. So on and so forth...

what are the post war artists of today?
The current breed of artist represent the corporate CEO's.
(Well you don't need to be a rocket scientists to say this.)

So what does this signify for tomorrow's artist?
It only says art and artist today is part of an INDUSTRY and not an individual genius who is creating out of his own creative instincts. he is no longer a maverick but calculative, business savvy individual. It is her/his marketing skills will precede over his creative and intellectual abilities.

Roots of corporatization of art can be traced back in 60s in America, specially to Andy Warhol as he openly called his studio" Factory", suggesting that every work of art that emerges from his studio is as 'product' of a factory . Apparently, Warhol a commercial artist, wanted to bring the concept and discipline of commerce in his artistic production. What makes Warhol a "Warhol" today is his ability to prove his point that an art object is as consumable a product like any other products in the market. He successfully ripped the tags of "sacred" "divine" creation associated with artistic mind. However, the concept of corporatization of art is consolidated only by later artists like Hirst, Koons, Murakami, etc. What these artist did(which Warhol set in motion) was to streamline the process of art into a "production unit" setting the foundation for an art industry... They function more as CEO-s- policy makers who decide the strategies of marketing, sales, production, distribution and publicity of their artistic 'brand'.

So here is the dawn of ART Industry And as an industry it follows( or will follow) the fashion industry in its model.

Labels is the next step. Every successful artist will have his or her own Brand( Which is already in place for some) or label as they call in fashion industry. Which will function as a production house. Once a brand is established, younger talented artist will be recruited to work under the brand.( which is already happening) Every year, like fashion seasons' every brand gets to show their new creation to keep themselves in the market ( fairs are the runways for today's artist).

so if everything is already functioning like an industry what more is needed.

There is one component of the industry is missing in the art industry to qualify fully as an industry as of now. Industry is always larger than than an individual
So even if the CEO dies/resigns industry lives on. Artist may die but label/brand will live on.

By that logic,even if Warhol died in 1987, his Factory can still continue his art under his brand. One of the greatest USP of the artist market was when artist died, his art became more precious as the 'supply ' has 'stopped'. Does these issues bother the artists' reputation or even his valuation in the art market...

I don't think so.
If fashion industry has resolved the issue of creative licensing successfully than why should it bother art industry ?
so my dear artist friends are you ready to brace the next challenge?

we can start worrying more about the labor problems, union strikes, supply of commodities... rather than creative blocks, lack of inspiration and new ideas, etc...
An heir of a brand artist can continue the business even if s/he is not an artist
and work for the brand "image"...

Believe me you,
This a win-win situation for all.
Mr. Hirst , are you reading my blog?