Yeah I don’t see it as a demand that socialist realism is the only acceptable art style but it does mean that someone like, say, Anish Kapoor is of no value and his work is all about enshrining the power of major establishments funded by billionaire “philanthropists” over the art world and thereby control over what is allowed to be expressed and how it can be expressed.

The idea that he’s exploring abstract notions of art is total bullshit, he’s expressing the power of the establishment to own an entire mode of communication. It’s a form of power language. The more abstracted art becomes the more it moves into a realm of only existing for an ever-wealthier class.

The idea of art existing for its own sake is the justification but the actual communication is usually class identity, wealth, power, elite status, and the massive institutions that love to promote this kind of art are funded by extremely wealthy high status individuals and these institutions seeks to claim the right to control and own this space even to the point of embracing and then redefining critics who sought to undo its power. Art is the height of liberal idealism and the capitalist art industry corrupts more easily than other capitalist activities.

Look at how pop-art is claimed by the art world. Look at the anthropological movement that looks at the world as an observer. Look at how we are told there is such immense hidden meaning of great import in the especially abstract pieces, difficulty in understanding a work relating to its “value” and how much expensive education (or at least expensive thick and very stylish coffee table books you need to buy) you need to “be educated enough to understand it.”

It’s power language.