Both a large part of today’s visual creation, improperly referred to as contemporary art—a term with typological pretensions—and most artistic initiatives owe their existence, to a great extent, to public resources and funding. If I claim that almost all contemporary art today is created and directed by public institutions, I am not making a significant error.
At the same time, the places where this art is exhibited and curated are called anything but gallery or museum. Terms like art space, salon, institute, center, etc., are preferred, reflecting a structural ambiguity and a blend between non-profit and for-profit organizations. However, even though most exhibition projects are supported by public funds, they can still sell art privately. In fact, no one questions whether or to whom they sell, and, not least, no one holds them accountable. Once a panel of experts approves a project, the quality and effects of the project are no longer questioned. No one cares if, at a vernissage organized with a budget of over 10,000 euros, the guests are merely members of the organization, close friends, a few passersby, or almost no one.
In the past ten years, the map of organizations exhibiting art has been significantly dominated by non-profit entities, even though their activities, as mentioned above, also include commercial actions. In contrast, private organizations dedicated explicitly and deliberately to exhibiting and selling art are much fewer and less enduring over time. And the enduring ones are even fewer. Additionally, to survive, many private art galleries choose to double their identity with an NGO and seek public assistance, which goes against profitability.