Stockartist project has its origins in my continuous search of the meaning of art and also in my essays to find the answer to the question What is art?, in my ambition to create artistic works of high quality I asked myself How to do "good" art? . The first way I took was to visit famous galleries and museums. My next question was Who and how they state what is "good" or "high quality" art?, then I read about art theory, I read critics of art, I visited renowned and unknown artists’ studios, I talked to art dealers and people devoted to art critics. In many cases I did not find solid differences between the art that was held by traditional institutions and that of artists known just by a couple of my friends. My following questions were: How is it that considering the existence of so many opinions and subjectivity in the selection’s decision of what is and is not "good" art, we don’t participate in showing our ideas about?; How is it that a lot of institutions generate so much power to place their judgment as the only right one and the definitive?. If the structure formed by gallery owners, museums, people who make critics, etc, would not exist or was different, had art been what we actually know?
To make an artistic work and its creator reach the highest
place in their category, the artistic work has to be acquired by the most prestigious collectors or by museums around the world. Such mechanism is based in a social circuit and speculative market composed by exclusive people from the art market: galleries, museums, auction’s houses, curators, critics, collectors. Morris Mc Intyre elaborated a model that illustrates interdependences of the actors inside visual arts sectors and where the participation of public in general is not included. The next thing I asked myself was: Is not it the same what we know as actual art market and that thing that will be known in the future as Contemporary Art History? Is it the art piece what makes art market or is it the market what makes the art piece?
Actually, there are approximately 40,000 institutions in the
US and Europe that controls the 98% of the art market around the world and there are 76 millions of art lovers who visit frequently these institutions every year. Morris McIntyre says that the main reasons about which most of potential purchasers do not integrate to the contemporary art world are: the habits of certain persons of excluding other persons, a feeling of inferiority and the fear to feel as an intelectual man or woman when one is not, or to feel oneself financially inadecuated. The economists B. Frey and W. Pommerehene state that public in general consider three values in his decisions about the world of art: the value of significance, that one of prestige and that one of option. In this way arrived one more question: How it would be a market model in which any person could participate making his (her) own speculations? In what way any person independently of his (her) incomes and knowledge about art can place an artist in a very significant historical position?
In accordance with my observations, during last years it has
been created a force that is helping to happen a collapse and a change in the world of art: internet will take a very important role in this metamorphosis. Just short time ago, the best enterprises kept their secrets under miles of keys. Now, it is not that way and it really can’t be so. Many of corporations that have developed in a very fast way in recent times have displayed models where information is shared from Google to eBay or Amazon.com and Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia created by volunteers, which is an important reference in the world. New paradigm is not to accumulate but to share. Mass medias- multiplied in screens, displayed in blogs, wikis, mobiles or podcastings-have produced a paradoxical effect of transforming distracted spectators and insane consumers into captious citizens. What Eric von Hippel calls “democratization of innovations”.
The complex superficiality paradox has succeeded over the in
depth complex. Complexity paradigm means that new knowledge won’t emerge any more from deep thinkings or great minds but from lots of minds in archipelago in open sources style. James Surowiecki states that a multitude can be more intelligent (take better decisions) than any of its members but just if it three basic conditions take place: multitude must be diverse, its components must be able to think in an independent manner without manipulation and there must be some reliable, democratic mechanism to gather their opinions up.