Yeah, I'm aware that art exists, and I'm aware that some art lovers exist. I'm also aware that capitalism enables people to buy and to sell things.

The article I'm writing now addresses the key question for me here, which is the clash between artistic and capitalistic values. Art exists because artists don't care so much about capitalistic values. Artists care about the artistic process, about self-exploration and the search for meaning.

The problem in neoliberal societies is that capitalistic values predominate so that even as art physically exists all over the place, its meaning and importance are lost. We commodify art, turn it into a status symbol, a decoration, or an investment.

I know there are exceptions such as connoisseurs, collectors, movie critics, academics, and other kinds of experts who are as obsessed with art as are the artists themselves. But if you think capitalism's impact on art is purely positive, I think you're sorely mistaken. Technological advances have enabled the mass production of art, but it's a Pyrrhic victory if most consumers treat art and artists as disposable.