"One of the reasons there’s so much talk about money is that it’s so much easier to talk about than the art,” Zwirner told me one day. You meet a lot of people in the art world who are exhausted and dismayed by the focus on money, and by its dominance. It distracts from the work, they say. It distorts curatorial instincts, critical appraisals, and young artists’ careers. It scares away civilians, who begin to lump art in with other symptoms of excess and dismiss it as another garish plaything of the rich. Of course, many of those who complain—dealers, artists, curators—are complicit. The culture industry, which supports them in one way or another, and which hardly existed a generation ago, subsists on all that money—mostly on the largesse and folly of wealthy art lovers, whether their motivations are lofty or base."
"Since the doldrums of the early nineties, the market for contemporary art, which has various definitions (work created after the Second World War, or during “our” lifetime, or post-1960, or post-1970), has rocketed up, year after year, flattening out briefly amid the financial crisis and global recession of 2008-09, before resuming its climb. Big annual returns have attracted more people to buying art, which has raised prices further. It is no coincidence that this steep rise, in recent decades, coincides with the increasing financialization of the world economy. The accumulation of greater wealth in the hands of a smaller percentage of the world’s population has created immense fortunes with a limitless capacity to pursue a limited supply of art work. The globalization of the art market—the interest in contemporary art among newly wealthy Asians, Latin Americans, Arabs, and Russians—has furnished it with scores of new buyers, and perhaps fresh supplies of greater fools. Once you have hundreds of millions of dollars, it’s hard to know where to put it all. Art is transportable, unregulated, glamorous, arcane, beautiful, difficult. It is easier to store than oil, more esoteric than diamonds, more durable than political influence. Its elusive valuation makes it conducive to extremely creative tax accounting." (long read)
13 comments:
Talk about money is tedious but talk about art is more tedious still, so I'm inclined to agree with the first sentence, at least.
I'll say that much, so as not to become any more tedious myself.
Though tedious, as Eric says, I read it. It reminds me of my daughter's collection of Peter Max paintings, most newer than older. Frankly, I prefer his older works in the era of "The Yellow Submarine" where his caricature is art per se. The newer works are rather plain in comparison, but cost a ton because of the name on them...now signed prominently large, when they once were small sub-scripts to the work itself.
The works of LeRoy Nieman are similar. If I could afford his original oil of "Elephant Nocturne" I'd own it...sadly I can't afford even a good print these days....4 figures + nowadays.
"Money" has indeed overtaken art in the world...which is not good for art in general.
That, and I believe these artists have formed "factories" to produce their "art" which they subsequently sign...ala' Andy (no talent) Warhol.
Thus, as Eric said...it really is tedious.
Government's money, its currency, inflated by to air aby government to pay down its own debts has to settle somewhere. It does not rain down upon everyone equally, rather those are the people paying it, squeezed as sponges with new water added that flows though established channels with few new channels opening, pours out to the ocean, evaporating along the way or wending along and pouring into lakes with no outlets formed from pools that were once puddles. The money must go somewhere so art as commodity is inflated like everything else, even more remote from the sponges squeezed to make all this work.
I want to say something about the world of art at large. Consumer art.
I am a bit of a voyeur. While driving along Denver streets at twilight and at night, as passenger I would gaze out the car window as it rode down the streets and peer into windows along the way if the curtains were opened. I know, right? I couldn't help it. It's like a peeping-Tom except in a car speeding along.
I'd see woefully plain white walls. Just pathetic. Sometimes a lonely framed picture. Noting much. Very modest. Very uncertain. No sense of interior design, AT ALL. It made me sad.
As time went on the interior scenery improved.
Presently what I see is very good taste in interior design and wonderful taste in art. The little insecure rectangles are gone, now homes display art that takes up whole walls.
It's not just a matter of money. The homes were always expensive relatively, what I see all around is art maturity and art confidence. I see a lot of good taste in interior design. And that makes me happy.
That first sentence came out bolloxed I hope you sorted it alright.
Most people are loathe to buy the affordable art of an unknown or barely known artist. And that's even if it appeals to them. They lack confidence in their own taste. I think it starts very early with the idea transmitted to them that art is something on a higher plane. They don't want to be fooled, or appear to be fools, buying the "wrong" art. So they turn to experts, who of course point them in the direction of the inflated artists and inflated prices. I'm sure it starts with this tension ordinary people feel about art and in the presence of art. It's not a natural everyday thing to them - which it in fact is - it's distant and even humiliating to them. So they buy little, or what "experts" recommend.
Chip Ahoy said...
Government's money, its currency, inflated by to air aby government to pay down its own debts has to settle somewhere.
Sorted out: government money will blow up like TNT as soon as the FED raises the interest rates and the government has to pay higher prices for its continuous borrowing. It may just surpass our GDP. Then what?
I do agree, however, that art appreciation has matured...just don't like the "factory" (ala' Warhol scheme) artists. I know a great steel sculpture artist out west than builds beautiful things on both small and large scales...I own one of his small scale pieces, but the larger items are beyond my reach, even though priced fairly for the the work and artistry involved. Here's a recent example.
ricpic said...
Most people are loathe to buy the affordable art of an unknown or barely known artist. And that's even if it appeals to them. They lack confidence in their own taste...
Sadly I suspect you are right. However, not for me...I buy what I like from whomever does it, famous or not, if I can afford it. I don't give a damn about what this or that "expert" has to say. I buy what art I can buy for me, not some prissy dipwad. :-)
Performance art: The shock and awe at the price is part of the art......Warhol prints, Dutch tulip bulbs: they're all creations of great beauty.
Art is the commodity of the rich. Why is this a problem for anyone? Oh wait, the sellout option has just been exercised.
Methadras...the artist I cited is donating the eagle, actually there are two eagles on a nest with chicks inside, all done full size....to the State of Montana gratis. It represents the eagles prevalent along the Madison River in S.W. Yellowstone. He cares more that his work be appreciated than bought. Montana has accepted his donation for placement in an as yet undisclosed location.
He just happens to be an relatively young (compared to me) journeyman steel worker, master certified welder, professional deep sea diver for metal work under water, oil rig roust-about, and an inveterate biker to boot. He's now dedicated only to his art and a small shop in rural Montana. You find beautiful art in places you don't expect and where the "rich" seldom travel. He did a arduous restoration of a WWII fighting knife, made by a deceased friend of mine, during WWII, without distorting the original work...for what amounted to a 6 pack of his favorite beer. Should have cost me $500+....what else can I say about him? :-)
William said ....
Warhol prints ... they're all creations of great beauty.
No, mostly Warhol's "factory" produced crap are "serigraphs"...aka fancy silk screen prints like tee shirts. He, and a couple others, like Peter Max, don't actually crate their work, they have a "factory " that create the works and then the "artist" sign the pieces prominently. It's almost like a religious laying on of hands.
Creations of "great beauty"...please I did a better oversize (5 gallon) Campbell's Soup can at age 12 for a theme picnic my parents held. And I guarantee you I am no artist. Any ordinary engineer could do as well or better. His crude copies of Marylin Monroe photos are even more crude and pointless. Good ole Andy was more businessman than artist and he began a genre of "factory" artists who have minions produce things for them to sign (think Peter Max and LeRoy Neiman & some others)...e.g., garner the big bucks. Check out any Las Vegas "art" shop...you can get your behind reamed and not realize it there abouts. You drop $5K plus for what is essentially a tee shirt printed on fine paper or equivalent...and can claim you know art.
If I had what my own daughter has spent on Peter Max stuff, 90% of it factory made, I could be driving a nice Bentley or better...and have chage left over for a new house. It is only "art" because she likes it .... no matter how "created." So I don't bother her about it...although I've mentioned the "factory " aspect...she ain't listening.
My comparison of Warhol prints to the beauty of Dutch tulip bulbs was my clever and subtle way of saying that there might be a bubble going on with these prints, comparable to that of Dutch tulip bulbs.
William....I missed that subtle comparison. I'd agree it is a "bubble" of sorts for pricey art prints. However, my kid's Max art are all original paintings, not prints,....most which I believe are "factory made" thanks to the process Warhol more or less re-invented in the modern era.
Post a Comment