You're certainly an art lover, and there's nothing wrong with that. The title of this article is somewhat hyperbolic. I'm aware that artists need to make money, and I don't address at all here the question of what sort of economy we'd have if art wasn't bought or sold. One possibility would be to make an exception for those with artistic talent, and to give them a basic income, subsidized by tax dollars (sort of like what Medium might be trying to do with certain writers).

But even to raise that possibility should alert us to what's wrong here. Neoliberalism has overtaken the old values that used to make an exception for art. Artists today are just more businesspeople. They're buying and selling products like everyone else. The religious or existential aspect of art has been forgotten or downgraded. Runaway capitalism or consumerism is the dominant functional religion.

So I agree, of course, that artists were competing long before capitalism. But what's different today is that God is dead, and we've thrown the baby (roughly, philosophy) out with the bathwater (theology and theism). Most of us no longer appreciate the existential stakes in the production and consumption of art, but that's what art is for. Art reminds us that we should be seeking for deeper meaning in life.

There are exceptions, of course, and I'm sure I don't have to lecture you about the meaning of art. Clearly, your appreciation of art isn't that of a cynical investor who thinks mainly in terms of financial profit or of material beautification, conspicuous consumption, and social status.

But the dominance of neoliberalism can't be so easily dismissed. This is a new context for artists, and when we see them sucked into these competitions with no competing metanarrative to speak of, we're in trouble.