That is, the critical-political claims of contemporary art, such as they are, are given the lie by their service to securitising the massive liquidity that now dominates political economy – and which shapes politics. This is not to say that critical art vanishes into an identification with the accumulation of wealth that now pervades it and which it clearly now serves as both asset and, differently, cultural index. Rather, that critique persists – must persist – if such wealth and finance-driven politics are to demonstrate an allegiance to and commensurability with the counter-normative socio-political contemporaneity into which such accumulation is integrated. This is not just a demonstration of the taste, cultural-aesthetic preferences, and power of an increasingly wealthy sector. It is also a mode of legitimisation that disposes of the antagonism between art's corrosive counter-hegemonic ambitions and such power; an incommensurability, if not conflict of interests (between cultural politics and political economy, precisely), that has been central to art's modernist tradition and its supporting discourses. The critical purchase contemporary art has is now a method of legitimation rather than delegitimation of dominant power as it is financially driven not despite but because of its ostensible content and claims with regard to cultural politics. In order to service the deployment of increased fiscal liquidity into the legitimating figure of critical cultural politics, it is important that art's critical claims do not disappear.