Fiat money, as it is designated (from the Latin Fiat “Let it be done”), is the norm today, a currency that has no intrinsic use value but, because it is granted the status of legal tender, acquires an exchange value. The value of money is thus, in part, a matter of convention and trust. So is, in a way, the value of Art. In times of a desperate leap towards ‘development’, a pile of money may appear as a blunt statement exposing the inter-connectedness of money’s fluctuating value and the transiency of dreams, a ‘numen’ hovering over our contemporary nation. It could also stand for the excessive appetite for wealth that has catapulted us into today’s political and financial dire straits. Unless of course, it turns out that most of the bills are just an imitation. Is not real money only a facsimile, always a copy of itself, without the original; behind them, creating volume, stocks, trading, networks. Money seems to measure or represent everything today, or, more accurately, mis-measure and misrepresent everything. What does this “money” mean then? And, more important, what is its worth?
Money relies on accumulation and repetition to determine …show more content…
Whatever the combination, pairing the two never fails to raise some controversy, and occasionally some important considerations. Especially when the notion of work is associated to the equation, reviving the old question about the nature of the artist’s profession. Some might argue that if art is work and work earns money, then artists should get paid. But what is the nature of transaction the artist makes with the viewers, the collectors, the consumers of art? This is also where the value of an artwork resides, in its intention.
Will ‘Let It Be Done’ every be done - completed in a consensual manner, or will it forever remain an intractable reminder of what cannot be resolved? Can we recalibrate art’s critical mandate