Lessons I learned working at an art gallery

How does the sale take place? Cash? So when the seller deposits the cash, no one asks where it came from?

The counter culture of his time was only because France had tried to make art be controlled from the top down. Part of the enlightenment was related to the idea that you could find "truth" in all forms through discovery like in science. So Aesthetics and language also became Prescriptive, where a central authority says what is right (just like science academy says what is right in science).

English for example is a non prescriptive language and there is no central authority, so english dictionaries describe how english is used not how english should be. France still has an academy of writers who says how French SHOULD be.

In the arts however the Salon failed, because art is not prescriptive and there is no right way to do art. Some people might work tirelessly to make a 200ft tall painting of virgin mary, and some might make a tiny postcard of a boat in their hometown and you cannot tell which one will move you from that description alone.

> So then what will be remembered from our time?

One of the main drivers of quality is influence. Its hard to tell what is good art when seeing it, but in 10 years when everything either looks like that or rejects that or responds to it in some way then that was good art. Bad art is forgotten.

So what will be remembered from our time is easy to know because things like the internet have accelarated cycles. People now get tired and move on to the next thing much faster.

So when people come back to hyper-pop, early, internet aesthetics almost 14 years later you know that it was good art (see 100 gecs, charli xcx, sophie). When more bands start being mysterious, adding lore through internet channels, adding metal and noise influences into hiphop you can tell Death Grips was good art.

In more traditional art you have an entire wave of artists now who are hyper sensible, honest and earnest. This is a rejection of artist like Koons or Hockney with their hyper capitalist "it sells" attitude that dominated post Warhol. That means those were good artist if everyone know wants to not be like them.

What wont be rememebred would be the awful graffitis facebook paid to have in their offices, or the Beeple NFT art that sold for millions at auction. Because it moved no one, it means nothing and it largely for headlines to move stock prices and nothing else. No one even hates that art, its just completely ignored as irrelevant.

This is something a lot of people don't appreciate about a modern constitutional monarchy with a functioning democracy: The modern role of royalty.

In the US, (I'm American,) we don't have events like this. Why? Elected officials (the President, a governor, mayor, ect,) has to perform these roles. They can't do these as often because they (elected officials) are busy running the country / state / city, trying to get reelected, or helping someone else get reelected.

When these events happen in the US, they are always inherently political. You always have an opinion of the leader. Even when event isn't supposed to be political, there's always a remark or an attempt to schmooze to get you to vote some way.

In this case, my understanding is that the King's primary role is an apolitical (because he's not elected) representation of the government and culture. We (in the US) simply don't have this. We get movie stars and Donald Trump.

I'm not trying to say that one form of government is better than the other: There are always people who are power hungry seeking power, and there are always people who are wealth hungry trying to manipulate the system. What I'm trying to do is point out that Henrik's system (constitutional monarchy) has its own advantages.

This is where I'm not seeing it. It sounds like the gallery employee we're talking about is working with several artists at once. Which gives them plenty of things to do.

And if the hours are long, then 4 of them are significantly less than half a day.