Who decides what constitutes art?

When does an object become art? Is it enough for an artist to label it as art? Must a museum exhibit it? Does it require an audience that perceives it as art? Or does the market ultimately decide? A look at art history shows that the boundaries of what counts as art have been constantly redrawn. The fact that something is regarded as a work of art is by no means historical constant, but is subject to the changes of the times. Art is therefore not only the result of individual creativity, but also the outcome of societal decisions about what is visible, aesthetically pleasing, worthy of collection and worthy of remembrance.

From the Academy to the Readymade and Modern Art

For a long time, there were relatively clear rules governing what could be considered art and who was permitted to produce it. In European art history, painting, sculpture and architecture were tied to specific technical skills and institutional structures. Artists worked on commission for the Church, the court or wealthy families, and operated within established notions of beauty, function and quality. Training, too, followed fixed rules. The academies determined which techniques had to be mastered and which subjects were regarded as particularly demanding. The so-called hierarchy of genres placed, for example, history painting above portraiture, landscape and still life. What constituted art was therefore not decided by the artist alone, but by an entire system comprising patrons, institutions and societal expectations. 

In the 19th century, this system began to change. Artists such as Gustave Courbet rebelled against the academic notions of which subjects were worthy of being depicted in art. Instead of mythological or historical scenes, Courbet painted workers, peasants and everyday situations. With his Pavillon du Réalisme in 1855, he deliberately placed himself outside the official exhibition system. The question of what constituted a suitable subject for art thus became itself the subject of artistic debate. 

However, it was Marcel Duchamp who brought about what was arguably the most radical break. In 1917, under the pseudonym ‘R. Mutt’, he submitted an industrially manufactured urinal entitled *Fountain* to the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists in New York. The object had neither been produced by Duchamp nor did it conform to traditional notions of artisanal craftsmanship. What was decisive, rather, was the concept of the readymade: an existing object became a work of art through its artistic presentation and new context. At the same time, *Fountain* demonstrates that this artistic presentation alone does not determine a work’s status as a work of art. Initially rejected by the exhibition committee, the object only became part of art history through a sustained process of recognition.

The key players in visibility

This brings the institutions into the spotlight. Museums, galleries, collections and art colleges are not neutral exhibition venues. Through their curatorial choices, they shape what attracts attention, what is deemed relevant and what is worth preserving. Those represented in major collections are researched, published and promoted. This creates a cycle through which certain artists and works become firmly established in the cultural memory. 

This process of selection is particularly evident in the art-historical canon. For centuries, it was primarily European male artists who shaped the narrative of art history, whilst female artists, non-European art and marginalised voices found significantly less representation in collections and research. Female artists such as Artemisia Gentileschi, Camille Claudel and Hilma af Klint were only rediscovered long after their active careers, or their artistic significance was only recognised more fully much later. Modern art also illustrates how such attributions can arise. Jackson Pollock is today regarded as one of the key figures of Abstract Expressionism and became known above all for his ‘drip’ technique, developed from 1947 onwards. However, the artist Janet Sobel had already been working with a comparable ‘all-over’ technique as early as the 1940s. Her works received far less attention, whilst Pollock’s work became a benchmark in art history. 

Alongside the institutions, the art market also shapes which artists receive attention. Galleries create visibility; collectors, through their purchases, help determine which works remain in circulation; and auction houses make market values publicly visible. Where institutional recognition and economic success converge, certain works gain visibility and, in the long term, also gain significance. The public is another factor that influences the recognition of art, as its reactions – particularly to provocative or unsettling works – also help shape how these works are perceived.