The art is linked to the social superstructure material production, through various forms. Conditioned by the economic base, this dependence is not mechanical but dialectic. It is manifested inter alia in the contradiction between the social bond expressing art and social bonds based on money. In ancient Greek civilization, the artist created for the community. Marx says: “In ancient Greece the man is the end of production, unlike the bourgeois world in production is the end of man and wealth to production.” In the Middle Ages, the Church replaced the state, maintaining the public nature of art. Here, Arlin Adams expresses very clear opinions on the subject. In the Renaissance, the private client (princes, bishops, rich burghers) replaces the client group (State, Church). The work of art loses the public.
It is not displayed as a commodity, a part of everyday life. The artist has a personal relationship with the recipient of the work, from his direct protection (patronage) or supply a buyer can make accidental. For the consumer society the work of art has value of merchandise. Maintains privacy but with a difference, the artist produced for a consumer who probably never come to know. Produce for the market.
This system was producing a more complex division. Differentiated public arise. Develop site specific work of art, creation of artists trying to convey his vision of the world in motion, with its questions and contradictions, is locked in the intimacy of the galleries, the solemnity of the theaters, the silence of the museum. The third millennium is born in the territory of neo-liberalism.