Capital Takes Over the Language of Art

Today’s contemporary art scene has been rewritten in the language of capital. Artworks have become units of transaction rather than outcomes of thought, and the artist’s creative act is adjusted somewhere between private desire and market demand.
 
The spiritual value of art—the inner form where human perception meets reflection—is gradually losing its ground.

This phenomenon is not merely the result of market expansion or cultural popularization. Capital absorbs the form of art to beautify itself, while art seeks legitimacy within the very structure of capital.
 
As a result, art loses its language of reflection and begins to mirror the face of capital in order to survive.
 

 
The Mechanism of Sign-Capitalism

Sign-capitalism is a system where it is not the use-value of commodities but their sign-value that drives accumulation. In this logic, artworks are no longer defined by what they express but by who sold them, for how much, and where.
 
Galleries, auctions, art fairs, and social media all function as machinery that converts artworks from subjects of aesthetic discourse into codified investment assets.
 
Within this structure, art is completely absorbed into the symbolic order of capital. The artist’s practice shifts from independent exploration to a “marketable style,” and the value of a work is determined less by its internal coherence than by the shape of its demand curve.
 

 
The Fracture Brought by the Age of the Collector

We now live in the age of the collector. Yet collectors today no longer act as patrons with discernment but as architects of the market itself.

Those with capital define artistic value; their consumption patterns dictate the flow of art. Consequently, market price precedes aesthetic judgment, and artistic standards are replaced by marketability.
 
“What did it sell for?” becomes more important than “What does it express?”

Artistic discourse is displaced by numbers, rankings, and brand value. This inversion lowers the overall level of art and turns the artist into a strategic producer who works under the gaze of capital rather than through inner necessity.
 
 

The Paradox of Popularization

The democratization of art is, in itself, a welcome development. It is encouraging that more people engage with and consume art.

Yet problems arise when that consumption is led not by critical sensitivity but by the logic of capital. Public interest and artistic value are increasingly mediated by market price, and media outlets often mistake auction records or celebrity ownership for indicators of artistic quality.
 
As a result, the public dimension of art erodes, and art becomes translated into the language of investment. Popularization has widened art’s reach—but has also made its understanding shallow.
 
 

The Consequences of Unsophisticated Collecting

Capital inevitably produces imbalances of discernment. When wealthy collectors without critical understanding dominate the market, artistic direction is distorted.
 
Artists tailor their work to what sells; galleries prioritize commercial viability over experimentation.
 
Within such a structure, genuine artistic inquiry loses ground, and art devolves into reproducible imagery. Capital can sustain art, but when its standards are misguided, it corrodes the ecosystem that nurtures it.


 
Reclaiming Autonomy through Structural Change

At the core of this crisis lies the transfer of “value-judging authority” from art to capital. To reverse this, the evaluative framework must return to within art itself.
 

First, public institutions and art platforms should foreground discourse rather than price. What matters is not the sale but the context, the ideas, and the aesthetic research embedded in the work.
 
Second, the asymmetry of information in the art market must be addressed. Transparent data on transactions, artist histories, exhibition records, and critical writings should be made accessible so that judgments rest on shared knowledge rather than insider privilege.
 
Third, collector education is essential. Only when collectors see themselves not merely as owners but as interpreters and supporters of art will the market’s qualitative level rise.


 
Beyond the Market: Recovering the Language of Art

The value of art is not defined by exchange. It lies in its capacity to embody human perception, thought, and the sensibility of its time. Yet today’s market replaces that language with the language of profit.
 
What must be resisted is not capital itself but capital’s attempt to substitute for the essence of art.
 
For fine art to reclaim its own voice within the era of sign-capitalism, it must revive the sensibility that asks “Why does it exist?” rather than “How much is it worth?”  Only then can art speak again—distinct and uncorrupted—amid the noise of the market.

Jay Jongho Kim graduated from the Department of Art Theory at Hongik University and earned his master's degree in Art Planning from the same university. From 1996 to 2006, he worked as a curator at Gallery Seomi, planning director at CAIS Gallery, head of the curatorial research team at Art Center Nabi, director at Gallery Hyundai, and curator at Gana New York. From 2008 to 2017, he served as the executive director of Doosan Gallery Seoul & New York and Doosan Residency New York, introducing Korean contemporary artists to the local scene in New York. After returning to Korea in 2017, he worked as an art consultant, conducting art education, collection consulting, and various art projects. In 2021, he founded A Project Company and is currently running the platforms K-ARTNOW.COM and K-ARTIST.COM, which aim to promote Korean contemporary art on the global stage.