Killers, and Auctions, and Art...Oh My (Open Thread)
There's a story on artinfo.com that raises so many questions it's hard to know where to start asking them. First, the background:Alfred J. Gaynor was convicted of raping, strangling, and killing four women near Springfield, MA, in the late 1990s. He's serving four consecutive life sentences at a maximum security prison, but with the money he gets (one presumes from working in the prison) he's buying art supplies and making drawings. The Web site of an advocacy group for prisoners, www.fortunesociety.org, is auctioning off the drawing by Gaynor you see here (details for this piece are here).
The local authorities are outraged that Gaynor is able to profit from his noteriety, with the District Attorney William Bennett asking, "Will they be showing pictures of the women he murdered at the same time?"
The president of the Fortune Society has argued in response that as equally important as punishment is the concept of rehabilitation for prisoners.
What neither side in the debate is asking (and the most important question to me) is whether the work is of high enough quality that it would raise any money at all were the "artist" not notorious. The honest answer to that would serve to shut down both sides of the debate, in my opinion, but I don't suspect they'll be asking it any time soon.
When I first read this story it reminded me of a debate we have in the gallery a good deal (i.e., how much tolerance should society show to it's highly gifted artists who are otherwise shits of human beings?), but upon further reflection, I realized that's irrelevant here, because Gaynor's not a highly gifted artist. Still, since the question's out there.... Should the work of obnoxious, abusive artists still be celebrated, or should there be a societal price for unacceptable behavior that extends to one's sales. You wouldn't buy a car from a man who you knew beat his wife, why buy a painting?
It also reminded me of an anecdote told to me by a mentor of mine who runs a secondary market gallery in another city. His assistant, who was somewhat new to the art world at the time, made him a work of her own (very amature) art and presented it to him framed for his birthday. His refusal of the gift struck her as incredibly harsh at first, but then he explained that it was an insult to him. That here he was trying to elevate the local standards, and she, his pupil, seemingly saw no difference. I don't necessarily agree with the rather elistist attitude that episode revealed, but I understand why he thought it was not cruel (he does have an exquisite eye, and there was no way he would hang the piece anyway, so why not be honest up front?). Personally, I love amature art...I won't buy it, but I won't reject a present of it either...it's generally much better than amature cooking anyway.
And speaking of food...I'm off to get breakfast...Consider this an open thread:
posted by Edward_ at
9:04 AM
13 Comments:
A real humdinger of a debate, Edward. The long dead artist I usually cart out for this purpose is Caravaggio; here is an absolute shit of a man, but his paintings are undeniably extraordinary. He died alone on a Sicilian beach (by most accounts, he was murdered) after fleeing authorities who wanted him for a killing of his own...over a tennis match! Still, his paintings remain stunning and important.
I believe art should be separated from the artist. There are too many examples of asshole (both male and female) artists who create incredible works and the importance/success of the work should not be dismissed for the sins of the maker.
However, my easy answer is quickly forgotten when considering only contemporary artists. These are people I can interact with and I have very little tolerance for assholedom. No, I wouldn't want to buy (or even trade for) a piece produced by an artist I respected as an artist but held in low esteem as a human being.
For the record, any artist who signs his or her name as prominently (and as flamboyantly) as Alfred Gaynor is likely a shit, murderous or not.
I believe art should be separated from the artist.
I agree, but I also agree that it's easier after the artist is dead.
Also, I'm not sure I'd call Gaynor an artist yet either. Just because you draw a picture doesn't make you an artist. Although, I do love the yellow road and the cactus.
Also, who's to say Gaynor's isn't actually using art to try and regain his humanity.
It gets so confusing.
Which is why I fall back on whether it's good art or not. Everything else is loaded with messy, messy morality.
Just because you draw a picture doesn't make you an artist.
So, do you have to be good (or at least promising) to be an artist? What exactly is the definition? This, of course, is the major dilemma faced by art brut/outsider art.
I believe art should be separated from the artist.
How is that even possible? Once you know what you know about an artist, it influences your understanding of the work. Plus, I'd say most work is impossible to understand without properly without including the artist in the interpretation.
As to your friend you refused his assistant's work, I have a similar story. My grandmother was apparently a frustrated artist and my mother had a number of drawings that grandma had made as a young woman framed and sent them to me (since I'm "into art"). I couldn't bring myself to hang them on the wall, even as family heirlooms. Imagine the conversation when my mom found the pictures filed away in a closet.
the asshole sometimes slips into the work. I can think of many examples but maybe it is better if I don't write them down....
I believe art should be separated from the artist.
Verrry difficult in pomo times: as Danto reminds us, one must now be privy to the artist's intent in order to grasp even whether a work is art in the first place.
Over the summer, I visited Thing at the Hammer, and came across a take-out carton, sitting on a book, in the corner. Had to check the wall labels before determining that it was the guard's lunch.
That the notorious sells doesn't make it art, of course. It just makes it collectible.
::beel
So, do you have to be good (or at least promising) to be an artist? What exactly is the definition? This, of course, is the major dilemma faced by art brut/outsider art.
Good question. I'd say at the very least you have to be "aware." How you measure that is even more difficult than measuring whether someone is "good" or "promising," I realize, but it's the best delineation I've heard yet.
couldn't bring myself to hang them on the wall, even as family heirlooms.
this is why I've adopted the crammed salon style for my home. Among the Modernist and valuable contemporary pieces are things friends have given me. It's not going to win any installation awards (and would probably scare the bejesus out of collectors if I ever invited any), but at least no one is insulted when they come over. Also, I don't really "see" each piece on a day-to-day basis anymore, there's so much of it, but I'm often very pleasantly surprised to rediscover a piece that's been right there in front of me for ages.
What neither side in the debate is asking (and the most important question to me) is whether the work is of high enough quality that it would raise any money at all were the "artist" not notorious.
I don't see how quality becomes an issue, since work often sells that is of very low quality.
I've spoken to dealers who claim to invest in the whole artist, and collectors who claim the same thing. They want to know you and be interested in who you are. I'd hazard a guess that neither type would be interested in owning a Gaynor, Gacy, Manson, or Hitler.
I don't see how quality becomes an issue, since work often sells that is of very low quality.
Come on Bill....
My point is that if Gaynor had not signed that piece and the general public was asked to bid on it based on its quality alone, with no indication of who made it, there'd be no debate, because it wouldn't profit him, because no where near as much money would be raised.
This morning out of curiosity looked at a bunch of the other works on the site. I suppose you could stretch it into "outsider art" but most of it is less than interesting. I agree with Eds observations regarding Gaynor's drawing. Give it a context (murders row) and a little website PR, well you might be able to sell anything but that doesn't make it art, or necessarily even a collectible.
I did find this one drawing interesting.
Come on Bill....
I get it now, thanks -
(woozy from a long drive) -
I'd by the car if the abuser created it. How do we really know the hearts of anyone? If we buy artwork, we all buy artwork from people we do not kow. If being a "good" person doesn't make your artwork "good", how can being a "bad" person devalue your work? Although I must admit to hesitating to sing along with "White Christmas" after I found out about Bing abusing his children.
D.H. Lawrence has been quoted as saying, "Never trust the artist. Trust the tale." This has been rephrased in modern times as "Trust the art, not the artist."
is art served when a fugitive war crimes/genocide suspect can get his poetry published despite being in hiding?
it's not visual art but it reminds me of what you're pondering
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home