Interesting viewpoint in this article. If it's to be believed, Garfield is a textbook case of art serving capitalism rather than the reverse. Of course we all know that art is always subject to marketability and very often this fact leaves us with a bland experience (the music industry anyone?), but this is the first case I've heard of someone doing it intentionally and without reservation. On one hand you have to admire Davis's business savvy; on the other it's chilling to think of art designed to be bland and what a world full of that would look like. I wonder how true this piece is and if Davis is really as calculating as it makes him sound.

This is an interesting quote from the article:

Garfield's origins were so mercantile that it's fair to say he never sold out—he never had any integrity to put on the auction block to begin with.