The concept of The ONE Museum was born at the end of 2019 from the meeting of a shared observation, a desire to make things change and a know-how, all three based on an in-depth knowledge of the Fine Arts world for many years.
On the one hand, the observation was of four kinds:
The first one emanates from institutions and an Art market which, both of them, sadly turn out to be largely owned by the same partial, navel-gazing, narcissistic microcosm, infatuated with itself and its privileges and in which elitism, cronyism, favouritism, nepotism, etc. reign, openly and without sharing. This exclusive system, tangled up in facile, often complacent, sometimes even collusive habits, has gradually and very naturally found itself prey to the sclerosing difficulties inherent in his clan behaviour, which led him straight to an increasingly closed, routine, narrow, passive, uninventive mode of functioning, cowering over itself, incapable of evolving and reinventing itself.
Moreover, this autistic two-headed system suddenly had to face, on the one hand, the deterioration of the economy that had hitherto sustained its decorum and lifestyle, and in parallel, the major technological turnaround that was the omnipotent advent of the "virtual", whose radical upheaval neither the institutions nor the market had really been able to apprehend at its true height.
Thus, a vicious circle was established, at the root of all the evils that we can deplore today.
Indeed, the conjunction of these two states of affairs in no way favours audacity, risk-taking and the will to defend with dignity and fervour little or not yet recognized artistic values which can only very hypothetically promise a guaranteed return on investment, if any. It then leads to the very hegemonic favouring, systemic and systematic, of the same ones and only artists who could be described as "bankable". This results in even further discrimination of any initiative to search for and discover new "unprofitable" artists, of the renewal of artistic proposals and thus, of the evolution indispensable to creative emulation which, in turn, inevitably leads to a gradual decline and then to a collapse in the quality of artistic production — since, as we know very well, as soon as a movement finds itself in the grip of a process of stagnation, we witness a regression of the process that can lead to its potential shutdown and destruction.
The classical media, as a whole, do not deviate either from the same abusively passive, conformist and very comfortable attitude for themselves, thereby definitively forgetting their secondary, yet quite fundamental, role. Their first duty is certainly to inform, but the second should be to assume their role of effectively revealing talents and promising artistic values and thus to open the way for new voices. But why should we be surprised that they do not?Quite simply because they have no interest in doing so. Their main concern is to secure their place within the sacrosanct coterie with which they share vernissages, VIP receptions and fancy dinners, perpetuating their intellectual orthodoxy in exchange for a few well-paying advertising recipes. It would seem completely out of place, even insane, to seek to unearth and carry some “out of the seraglio” talent, which “The Holy Clique” would certainly look unfavourably and would not know in any way what to do with it, since for its apparent safeguard, it opposes an end of non-receipt to any novelty.
Only the alternative media, mostly digital, still seemed to want to escape from the mainstream in all their good faith. However, they are so multiple that their audience is mathematically subdivided and therefore their influence made more anecdotal, sorely lacking in vectorial efficiency. Moreover, the cautious milieu, having sensed in them despite everything a potential, still hypothetical danger, has itself infiltrated a certain number of them, emanating from more or less institutional or commercial parent structures, not being free of subliminal “broodmare” ulterior motives either...
So, if we wanted to summarize the situation trivially, we could, without any great possible contestation, and without any great consternation either, because everyone honestly agrees on the same observation, affirm that it contributes to always seeing the same artists everywhere, without guaranteeing that they are indeed the best. Can we just hope, at best, that there are a few among them anyway…
Reciprocally, the second one, equally unfortunate, is to observe that art itself, as diverse as it may be, then retreats into the same moroseness, the same resignation, the same frigidity, the same sterility, leading it to numbness or even apathy to the point of no longer freely evolving and innovating, contenting itself, more or less voluntarily, to melt into the same expected mould, to be nothing more than a sad, sempiternal repetition of the same recipes, of the same used or even obsolete methods, officially, curatorially or commercially inducted - the two often going hand in hand or being only a glaring consequence of each other, or even purely connivial.
The third one, derived from the first, is just as blatant. Many galleries, seeing themselves deserted by the buyers, no doubt because of an increasingly difficult market, and at the same time observing their collectors (Merlins the Wizards of the "laughing time" and Kingmakers) have been transformed over time into cold speculators, forgetting in this their "innate love of Art -— something which could not fail to favour even more the largest galleries (by size and financial power) which alone have the means to represent these artists they enthroned, shamefully expensive, abusively overpriced, and to support their so inflated ego — have simply forgotten their primary vocation to change their profession completely: above all they have to subsist…
Forgotten the desire to purely defend artistic values and the artists they could believe in, forgotten the love of risk and the feverish excitement for the vernissage of an artist who is still unknown but full of talent... The exorbitant hanging rights, the paid pseudo-competitions to "win" a poor exhibition, Contemporary art fairs as empty of meaning and audience as the drawers of their GOs (Genteel Organizers) are filling up, the very virtual "art galleries", tragically resembling each other by their mediocre aesthetics, their dreadful inefficiency and their carnivorous financial appetite, are now the new Hawks and the artists, their pigeons.Pay, pay, always pay... and pay again!... and try, as the last alternative for artists, to seize the most illusory chance in the world to get out of the transparent pack of the damned and maybe make themselves known — being recognized is now only a distant dream — before acquiring the assurance of dying!
The fourth one, finally, which comes from the first three is the tragic impoverishment of the immense mass of artists. Of course, one can always invoke the history of Art and its blessed cohorts of geniuses, discovered and crowned post-mortem, each of whom in turn had fallen into poverty, destitution and total abandonment, contributing to the glorious legend of the cursed artist entering the pantheon of the centuries to come. This is obviously not false. It has existed, will surely exist again...