Is capitalism destroying art?

Not really, there's likely more art than ever and not all being exclusively made for profit either.

No! Economy is booming and art is booming. Greatest art of all time. Our ancestors would envy us and our offspring will grieve its loss.

>More art is better.
Most of that art is shit on etsy made by single mothers who want to pretend that they have a career. Either that or 'singer songwriters' writing basic shit hoping to 'make it'.

For the mainstream maybe, but it also allows side avenues of creativity that never could have existed without it.

Art destroys itself from time to time so it can be reinvented.

Actually I think maybe that itself is the problem. Let's say 90% of all art made is not great. (Which is a pretty conservative estimate.) A couple hundred years ago, there weren't a lot of people making art, so even if 90% of it was shit there was still a small enough amount to sort through and find the amazing stuff. Today, we live an age of over-abundance. That includes art, and frankly there's so much shit art that it's hard to sort through it and find the great works. I'm explaining this horribly, but hopefully I got my point across.

Isn’t the whole point of postmodernism that no one can define what art is?

Fpbp

Attached: Boris-Vladimirski-Roses-for-Stalin-detail.jpg (1200x800, 105K)

and it's all shit

FFS, meant for

Capitalism didn't kill anything because it can't. Capitalism is merely a tool: up until recently art was made by and for an aristocracy, with the rise of capitalism and democracy art is now a consumer good for the general population. If art is "dying" it's because it now belongs in the market and the people modified art through its consumption.
To put it bluntly: people are retarded and the recent access of art to the general population turned everything into shit. You write a masterpiece, it never gets published. A YouTube star publishes a ghostwritten memoir of his Fortnite adventures and he will have more than ten editions.

People who complain about abstract art's position on top of the market, and diagnose it as a symptom of capitalism fail to appreciate the long, long history and prominence of Marxist artists. Case in point, Malevich, who's often derided as a talentless hack who has no reason to command the prices he does. The man was a commie, and was largely championed by Trotskyites after the revolution.

Artists are going to make art regardless and “good” art is only assumed to be good relative to the viewer, so why would there be more “good” art in a different system which changed the definition of what “good” art is?

Is he Mona Lisa good art?
Are he millions of .pngs of Mona Lisa good art?
Are the Mona Lisa forgeries cranked out by the thousands in China “good” art?
Are the thousands of crappy copies of the Mona Lisa made by inner city students who get subsidized education “good” art?

If art is getting worse, does it even matter if you consume it instead of the existing set of old “better” art?

This. All we have been shown is that the average person has shit taste, and is probably retarded.

So capitalism is basically the enabler/accelerant of postmodernism?

Postmodernism is the latest recapitulation of liberalism as a bourgeois ideological project, so yeah. Same was true of fascism, social democracy and Stalinism / Post-Stalinism.

The word you are looking for is catalyst.

Capitalism is a deficient economic system/means to an end, not a volitional entity that is capable of destroying anything.

You might be looking for the word dispositif.

Read Adorno.

Capitalism is a concept. Concepts don't have agency in the world. You meant to say capitalists.

And the answer is no. Capitalists don't destroy art. Capitalists seek to raise capital, but different capitalists have different desires for the capital they obtain. Sometimes capitalists seek capital for the arts. There is another group who seeks to destroy art: moralists.

>heh nothing to add really
>u just gotta check out the hottest best kept secret in leftist thinking
>"read Adorno"
>and join our cool secret leftist club
>*wink emoji*

my moneys better spent buying future money instead of present art

>better
why

The short answer is no. The long answer is...it's complicated.

The only way that capitalism can be seen as truly trespassing on art's sanctity (whatever that means) is through advertisement, which shadows art. In premodern times most public works of art were given mostly religious or governmental significance. Art either glorified spirituality or supported the grandeur of the state and its rulers. When the growth of the mercantile class exceeded or rivaled the power of traditional powers such as religion and the state in the early modern period (about 1600s), art's role expanded into a new economic level. Art then became commodified, which is the first mark capitalism placed on art. Art now could become something bought and sold, dispersed between networks of private collectors, museums, traders and other proprietors. Art was given cash value. Art was also touched by advertisement, which through the same processes borrowed the form and techniques of art.

All this ended up doing in the end is that art objects became part of the market and the market appropriates art in the construction of its advertisements.

That however, doesn't necessarily detract from art, as it just added one role to it than what had existed previously. If anything it's a good thing that suddenly very large sums of money was associated with it. Not every artist can have a wealthy government patron or the permission of the church, which is another way of saying that in the past not everybody could be an artist. Today, thanks to capitalism, anybody who happens to make the right kind of art can make a decent, and even excellent living for themselves if the cards shake out.

Capitalism destroys everything in his way. They create the monstrosity of socialism/communism and fucked all the human stuff.