Reading Response 7 -Bishop

One question that appears while reading this text was how does art aesthetic assimilate due to commercialization? The most significant aesthetic nowadays is how something can be embraced by as many people as possible. The fact that contemporary art is largely criticized and unwelcome to the public's view is because it is not a product that satisfies both artists and audiences. But the value and essence within an artwork loses and alienates if it is becoming a product. Like what the text says, that aesthetic is highly contentious since its status has been rendered untouchable. The ultimate goal of an artist is to formulate a style of aesthetic that is extremely individualized, which belongs to themselves. But assimilating to the market will eliminate the importance of 'artist' of an 'artwork', or it is no longer an 'artwork'. The 'artist' will no longer be an 'artist' but a person who 'completed a piece.' The political and sociological view expressed through an artwork should be the fundamental of 'meaning', where contemporarily, the ideal created in work should be overtaking pure visual aesthetic. However, this expression is vanishing once it is assimilated with vast production. I went to Tadao Ando's exhibition in Shanghai this weekend, and the stunning part was that the works are subtle fusion products of political, aesthetic, and commercial. He named his exhibition challenge, challenging the city's geography, challenging the boundary of public aesthetic, and challenges himself as an architect. It is the first time being in an exhibition with so many people that I can hardly move around freely. The pursue of the public has changed. Unlike several years ago, contemporary art is no more avant-garde to people. Therefore, artists should enlarge the politics of art, and simultaneously, artists should not assimilate their aesthetics in to the market.