My cousin is a gallerist in NY. She has a theory that the reason the art market has gotten so out of control in recent years is because of how easy it is to smuggle and launder money with art. With art, there's no title, no ownership history, and records are non-existent in many cases. One can essentially move money at will across international borders if it's tied up in an expensive work of art that can be easily resold on the other side. It's a little bit brilliant. But the other side, being disillusioned by how dumb art collectors can be, get over yourself. People collect art for different reasons. Some enjoy the art for it's own sake, and some want a more interesting place to park their money. Not everyone is going to understand every piece on a deep level. So some rich person doesn't know the difference between a photo and a painting? Big deal, at least they're keeping you employed. I think judging people as stupid, because you have a moral superiority complex is a bit out of touch with reality. There's a lot of good art and a lot of bad art in the world; the difference is often purely subjective, and who knows why X gets hot and Y withers and dies in obscurity.
I agree but: I guess the stance comes from the arts being humanity's way of expressing itself within this environment. To reduce someone's attempt at self-expression to "we don't really get or care what your intentions were, but its kinda cool [or we've been told it is] so here's some money," seems disappointing. I imagine it would bother an artist even more if those individuals then just used the piece to brag. Also, money laundering. Absolutely.There's a lot of good art and a lot of bad art in the world; the difference is often purely subjective, and who knows why X gets hot and Y withers and dies in obscurity.
From the article: Disappointing perhaps, but at least it's honest.To reduce someone's attempt at self-expression to "we don't really get or care what your intentions were, but its kinda cool [or we've been told it is] so here's some money," seems disappointing.
I don't know. I know a few artists who are pretty well known in some circles who have a hard time cracking $40k/yr. I think any one of them would be happy as a pig in shit to sell some work for an unreasonable price. After all, it's still a business, and people still need to eat. I have a few works myself that I don't "get" but that I can appreciate and in which I can find my own meaning. An artist isn't going to quiz you on your knowledge of art history before (s)he sells you something.
Yeah, makes sense. But again you are being more reasonable than the extreme I described. The hope is that there are less people behaving that way than the author would make it seem.
The extreme definitely makes for a better anecdote, whether it's true, false, or somewhere in between. However, one anecdote about an art collector who can't tell a painting from a photo isn't something to extrapolate from. Anyway, on a side note, why is it ok to want to make money in the movie or music industries, or by writing a book, but not in the more traditional visual arts?
I dont think the problem is explicitly acquiring currency from your media, but the means and methods by which the art is used to acquire currency. It's accepting money from apparatuses that are explicitly more concerned with profit than promoting the art itself that's the problem. That's not really cool and helps to facilitate things like cultural appropriation and the general decline in quality trying to gain a mass audience [see: current state of popular cinema in america, dubstep turning into brostep, low lyricism in popular rap, etc]. I agree with this view based on personal life experiences.
I really appreciate this conversation and I think you both make great points. I think the crux of the problem is that the economic structure of galleries informs the way artists make work, instead of the other way round. And that their representative structures force artists to find a way to brand themselves. Both force many artists to step away from their true selves....but that is just my speculation. (i work in the biz in ny, though on a very low rung. i do however have many art friends and peers, and I'm basing my speculation from my own experiences and what i've shared with them)
...*or*, the economic structure of galleries informs how artists who want to support themselves through their work make their work, while those that do not care as much about making money from their output don't find this to be the case. Perhaps it is this way because it is simply good, effective, tried and true proven advice from people who's business it is to help the artist sell their art. Taking into account the goals of the artists, this could be a great benefit that galleries provide to artists. I think that the path of sustainment via gallery distribution and self-branding need not be contradictory to most artist's "true selves" and that even the emphasis on this "true self" might be misplaced to begin with and hint at a kind of platonic idealism that exists and matters less than people might wish it did. I think that we have to look at artists through practical lenses and not hold their work above them too much. There is nothing dirty about paying your rent. A true artist will always put their voice into the world no matter what percentage (does not have to be 100, right?) of their art touches commerce.I think the crux of the problem is that the economic structure of galleries informs the way artists make work, instead of the other way round.
And that their representative structures force artists to find a way to brand themselves.
Both force many artists to step away from their true selves....but that is just my speculation.
I should clarify, with true self I don't mean some romantic individualistic self type thing. In reality I think it is this gallery structure that forces artists to brand themselves and thus form a sort of cult-of-personality face. With true selves I am signifying towards a self that need not lend itself to being pedestaled; the problem being that the artist is the brand (and so the artist must morph), not the artwork. I believe that this is the issue with galleries: that they focus on promoting the artist, instead of privileging the artwork they make, and, in turn, forming a business model / schedule that reflects and supports it. But this would mean that art would be need to be valued in a different way. And so I think it is a step that existent galleries cannot take... I don't have a problem with artists making money from their work! I just think it's a shame that they're often forced to make art of themselves, first. (Fuck statements of intents)