The purpose of the article is to analyse the role of the art market as an institutional mechanism that actively influences the formation of new cultural meanings, meaning-making strategies, and hierarchies of artistic value. Research methodology. An interdisciplinary approach was applied, combining methods of cultural, sociological and economic analysis. The main research methods are: content analysis of scientific publications, critical discourse analysis – to identify the ideological premises behind the meaning-making mechanisms of the market. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the comprehensive understanding of the art market as a cultural institution that actively participates in the production of meanings and the transformation of artistic value. Conclusions. The art market in the 21st century is not only a platform for the capitalisation of aesthetic experience, but also an environment for the creation of cultural meanings. The commodification of art changes its symbolic nature: a work is increasingly valued not by its aesthetic or spiritual value, but by its market price, which is considered a measure of artistic significance. In the process of market legitimation, curators, gallerists, art dealers and institutions play a key role, not only promoting certain names or styles, but also creating ‘islands of meaning’ – stabilised meanings in a world of artistic uncertainty. They act as a kind of arbiters of artistic value, while at the same time consolidating aesthetic and social hierarchy. The commercial logic of the art market stimulates aesthetic hybridisation, the blurring of genre boundaries and post-authenticity as the norm. In this context, the artist is increasingly perceived as a brand, and media coverage becomes a determining factor in artistic success. This leads to a shift in emphasis: from art as a unique act of creativity to art as a market product. In general, the modern art market forms new cultural and artistic meanings as a space of balance between authenticity and market demands, between aesthetics and capital, between media and content. Thus, it does not simply adapt to cultural changes, but becomes their active agent, influencing the very nature of art, the idea of creative identity, legitimacy and aesthetic norm.
Andriy Bryhіder (Mon,) studied this question.