THE COMMERCIALISATION OF REBELLION:
“I don’t think about art when I’m working. I try to think about life.”
(1960–88)
HOW BASQUIAT’S ART BECAME A PRODUCT
In his seminal work, Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher highlights how counter-culture and anti-establishment movements are almost always absorbed and neutralised in the current socio-economic models of the West.
Engaging with commodities provides the illusion of critique and resistance, making the individual feel active in their opposition while quietly being subdued and pacified. Engagement with the surface-level critique of establishments, institutions, and ideas nullifies one’s innate opposition and provides a sense of righteousness, allowing the system to perpetuate itself by deflecting attention away from deeper issues. We can see this in recent decades with the revisionist interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr. He is now depicted as an apolitical figure, championed by both sides of the political spectrum— a topic that deserves further exploration in the future.
Unfortunately, it appears Basquiat has succumb to a similar fate, although not existing prominently within contemporary political discourse.
Untitled (1981), now commonly referred to as the Skull, was the first Basquiat piece I remember encountering. Although I was neither an art historian, a critic, nor necessarily even a fan of art at that time, I recall the distinct resonance I felt with the image in front of me. I couldn’t decipher meaning, subtlety or nuance — but I could tell that I shared something in common with whoever was responsible for this ; resounding agitation and anger. The despondent eyes and grimacing teeth were enough to draw me in, and so my research into Basquiat’s life and work commenced.
Becoming familiar with Basquiat was so strangely refreshing, almost overnight art became meaningful and cool — a way to see my emotions expressed through others. Sentiments which had rang true inside of me for years were solidified in the works of Basquiat. Like many apathetic individuals harboring internal rage behind their apathy, Basquiat was a contrarian — everything the world expected him to be, he denied, and instead, he was simply Jean-Michel. Yet, his outwardly different approach would also define him entirely. He later labeled himself a legend rather than a real person — his hyper-real self ironically leading to the disintegration of who he was. What he represented became a commodity even prior to his untimely death.
In a sad way Basquiat’s art and its essence share similarities with the corporate power structures which monopolised his work. Born from deep raw emoiton and fuelued by a rebellious spirit, Basquiat was inherently positioned against the mainstream. His work consistently critiqued the inequalites of race, class and power. However, as is often the case, the commodfication of his work drained it slowly of its reveolutionary potenital. He redefined what it meant to be a black artist, what street art could mean on an international stage and placed the meaning of art in the contemporary concerns of the ordinary.
The process of neutralization of such messages is not even always distinctly purposeful — in fact, I believe many of the individuals involved act with positive intentions. Basquiat’s work, displayed in galleries around the world and sold to billionaires, has become a fixture of high culture, and as such has attracted a different audience in the process. In his work Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Pierre Bourdieu explores ideas of cultural capital as well as their impact. Art can be seen as an objective form of cultural capital, and Basquiat’s work which began on the streets of New York ended up claimed by a complelty different class of individuals. The power of art lies in its messaging, the subtlety one can extract, the parallels they can draw with the piece in front of them, and the deep-seated emotions and preferences they harbor within.
If artwork which carries messaging for disenfranchised groups is then approaptied by a different class, this meaning is diluted and misinterpreted. It becomes a sort of modern punk music, misconstrued and misunderstood. Its inherent power and ability to catalyze change is removed as it becomes a political message nullified by the passivness of an art gallery. It must be understood that I have no issue with galleries; they provide an excellent opportunity to explore new art, styles, and perspectives — both on the physical representation of aesthetics and taste, and on life itself. However, as Bourdieu highlights, galleries and art, for the most part, are not accessed by those from whom the most important political messages can be extracted.
Unfortunately this phenomenon is not one unique to Basquiat, or even the medium of painting itself. Take punk music for example. Emerging in the mid 1970s, with bands such as The Sex Pistols, The Clash and the Ramones, it was a direct response to the socio-political climate of the time — marked by economic hardship and growing dissastification with mainstream culture. Just like Basquiat, Punk rejected the polished, commercial, music industry and served as a form of resistance. Much like Basquiat’s work, punk soon faced appropriation, as its popularity grew, its anti-establishment messages were diluted, commodified and disseminated.
Academic of the Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno’s work grants us insights into how the current economic system can blur lines between high and low culture making meaning almost indistingusihable, as everything becomes product. Arguing that the mass production of culture has led to standardisation, which enabled popular culture to reinforce the structres of capitalism. An example of this can be seen in the merchandising of Basquiat. Uniqlo, H&M and, Forever 21 are all examples of mass producing clothing stores who have capitalised from selling Basquiat’s work on clothes. In fact, I own some of these very pieces. This widespread commercialization of Basquiat’s work, however, not only strips his art of its unique, rebellious essence but also transforms it into a symbol of consumerism rather than resistance.
Image from Primark’s Basquiat collection
His work, once a refelection of marginalized voices, becomes detached from its revolutionary context when reproduced on cheap, mass-market products.The process of commodification, as Adorno suggests, leads to the standardization of cultural objects, making them more about consumption than contemplation. By saturating the market with Basquiat’s imagery, it transforms from a powerful political statement into a mere aesthetic, consumed without critical engagement. In this way, the radical potential of Basquiat’s work is diluted. Instead of confronting consumers with uncomfortable truths about race, class, and power, it becomes a trendy logo, stripped of the complex historical and social context that made it so impactful in the first place.
The ubiquity of Basquiat’s imagery, once a tool of social critique, becomes so normalized in everyday life that it loses its ability to challenge. Just as the meaning of mass-produced cultural products like pop music or blockbuster films can become flattened through repetition, Basquiat’s art is reduced to a fashion statement, an emblem to be worn, rather than a piece of visual resistance that demands reflection and action. The more we encounter it in this context, the less likely we are to engage with it in a way that questions or critiques the systems it was meant to disrupt.
Through this process, the revolutionary potential of the artwork is effectively neutralized, transformed into just another commodity in the capitalist marketplace — one that can be consumed and discarded without ever challenging the status quo.
LOS ANGELES, 2025
Contact Instagram
Home