Read in English / 阅读语言 
ไทย
Art City Race: The Contest to Claim the Future of the Global Art Map
Over the past four to five years, the global art world has begun to reveal a sharper geopolitical edge. Cities are no longer simply competing for cultural prestige. They are competing for position — and position, in this particular contest, carries consequences that extend far beyond gallery openings and museum attendance figures.
Call it the Art City Race. It is messier, more calculated, and more consequential than the name suggests.
More than monuments
For decades, governments treated art as supplementary — a civilisational ornament, evidence of urban refinement, the kind of thing you fund generously when the economy is doing well and quietly trim when it is not. That assumption has not merely aged poorly. It has been overtaken by a more urgent logic.
Art, properly understood, is an infrastructure play. It shapes the atmosphere of a city, draws capital and creative labour, generates tourism that carries narrative weight, and produces the kind of symbolic visibility that conventional trade missions cannot buy. The countries moving fastest in this race are the ones that grasped this connection early — and began building systems rather than simply staging events.
Singapore’s structural bet
Singapore is one of the most interesting cases in this race, precisely because its approach has been the least glamorous.
Rather than chasing headline fairs or commissioning landmark buildings, the city-state chose to integrate arts development into its national workforce strategy. Through the Skills Framework for Arts, linked to the broader SkillsFuture programme, Singapore has mapped professional pathways across the wide range of roles in the creative and art sectors.
This is a detail worth pausing on. The art world is not sustained by talent alone. It depends on specialised labour operating across culture, commerce, and public institutions simultaneously. When a government begins to plan for that labour systematically, it is not simply running a training scheme. It is laying the foundations of an ecosystem — one that can survive the end of any particular festival season, the departure of any particular collector, the closure of any particular gallery.
The difference between a city that has art events and a city that has an art infrastructure is, in the long run, the difference between visibility and durability.
The Gulf’s market logic
Where Singapore has built patiently through systems and skills, parts of the MENASA region — Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia — have moved with a more direct market logic, deploying tax and customs policy to pull high-value artworks and collectors into their territories. Abu Dhabi’s import tax exemptions for works held in-country for a minimum of three years are the clearest example: an instrument designed not merely to attract art, but to make it stay long enough to generate economic and cultural activity around it.
The strategy is not without its critics. There are legitimate questions about whether market incentives alone can build cultural depth, or whether they tend to produce high-value circulation without the institutional roots that sustain a genuine art scene. The arrival of capital and artworks does not automatically produce audiences, critical discourse, or the kind of long-term community investment that makes a city feel, to artists and curators, like somewhere they want to build a practice rather than simply pass through.
These are not fatal objections. But they are honest ones.
The prize everyone is sailing toward
Here is where the stakes of the race become clearest — and where a useful analogy presents itself.
In Eiichiro Oda’s One Piece, the world’s most powerful pirates do not simply want treasure. They want the One Piece: a singular prize whose possession would grant its holder dominion over the seas. Every crew, every alliance, every sacrifice in the story is oriented toward that one position at the top of the world.
The Art City Race operates on a similar logic. The prize is not any single fair, museum, or biennale. It is the position itself — the status of being the city that others orient themselves towards. The city where artists want to build careers, where collectors want to anchor collections, where institutions want to plant flags. Once a city claims that position convincingly, the world moves around it rather than past it.
This is soft power in its most precise form. Not a slogan attached to cultural programming, but a structural capacity to draw engagement without coercion. The art city does not advertise its influence. It exercises it by becoming the kind of place that everyone else is already sailing toward.
The converse is equally important. Cities that delay, or that continue to mistake spectacle for strategy, do not simply fall behind. They find the gap widening in ways that become progressively harder to close. The cost of delay in this field is not just time. It is the quiet erosion of institutional capacity, professional networks, and international credibility — the accumulated capital that takes years to build and surprisingly little neglect to lose.
An honest complication
The more searching question is not whether the Art City Race risks corrupting art. It is whether the infrastructure being built can actually sustain the people who make it.
A city with a credible art ecosystem is one where artists can build careers, not just exhibit. Where collectors grow alongside the market, not simply extract from it. Where the institutions created to support art are capable of developing it over time, rather than cycling through the same names for the same audiences.
That is the standard by which the race should be judged — not by whether art remains uncomfortable, but by whether it remains viable.
The real prize
In One Piece, the most dangerous stretch of ocean is not simply hard to cross — it punishes those who enter it without understanding its nature. Ambition gets crews to the entrance. Something harder to name is what carries them through.
The Art City Race is no different. The cities most likely to claim a lasting position are not those that move the most money, build the largest fair, or announce the most ambitious cultural vision. They are the ones that understand art as a structure of power with its own internal logic — a logic that cannot be entirely managed from above without losing what makes it worth managing in the first place.
To claim a place on the global art map is to acquire something real: influence over where artists go, where institutions anchor, and where the conversations that define the field take place. That is a stake worth competing for, and a prize worth sailing toward.
In the end, the King of the Pirates wasn’t the one who grabbed the most. It was the one who made everyone else want to sail in his direction.
Story: Tae Art Man
