What About Artists? Open Thread
The New Yorker profile on Tobias Meyer I wrote about a while back has caused a bit of a storm with two prominent art writers (both of whom I greatly admire, both personally and professionally) ...uh, I should clarify...they're upset with The New Yorker, not my post. The writers are the esteemed Jerry Saltz and Tyler Green. First Tyler responded to the profile, commenting on how "gushy" the weekly has gone lately:Then Jerry commented (quoted by Tyler on his blog): I'm not the only one who has noticed that three recent New Yorker big-deal profiles of art people have had nothing whatsoever to do with, uh, hmmm, well.... artists. Village Voice critic Jerry Saltz also thinks that the New Yorker's recent coverage, the Meyer piece in particular, is strange. We've got a Big NYC Media Smackdown: Saltz sent this letter to both MAN and The New Yorker:And then Tyler followed up with:The New Yorker really drank the Kool-Aid in John Colapinto's wet-kiss to big-money fast-action art-heroes who sell art works to the highest bidder. How can someone conscientiously write an entire profile on Tobias Meyer, the chief auctioneer and worldwide head of contemporary art at Sotheby's, and not mention, even in passing, that contemporary art auctions are bizarre combinations of slave market, trading floor, theater, and brothel? They are rarefied entertainments where speculation, spin, and trophy hunting merge as an insular caste enacts a highly structured ritual in which the codes of consumption and peerage are manipulated in plain sight. Auctions are altars to the disconnect between the inner life of art and the outer life of acquisition, places where artists are cut off from their art. At auctions desire is fetishized, buying and selling become a sort of sacrament, art plays the role of sacrificial lamb, and the Ponzi scheme that surrounds it all rolls on. For The New Yorker to publish an article like this and not raise one discouraging word about auctions is more than a little discouraging; it is a sickening. Aside: Several emailers have written in to defend the Leo Koenig piece in the New Yorker. Yes, it certainly had more backbone than the Meyer or Weinberg stories. But I think my underlying point stands: What about artists? OK, so I subscribed to The New Yorker only earlier this year, but I'd read it fairly regularly before then, and although I agree with Jerry and Tyler that the profiles in question were "gushy," I'm not sure the charge that The New Yorker is ignoring "artists," per se, is entirely fair to the magazine. Not in general, at least. UPDATE: Mr. Meyer will be speaking March 30th. If we weren't having an opening you should really attend instead that night, I'd recommend you find out for yourself whether The New Yorker piece was hyperbole or fair and balanced journalism. |
posted by Edward_ at
9:06 AM
32 Comments:
I think magazines, dealers and auctioneers are allowed to be gushy, to spin their products any way they need, because they're exactly that: products. All three of these begin and end with cashflow, and die without it.
IMO artists have no responsibility for the tone and texture of the current market, unless they've gone Kostabi in some way or other, producing entirely for market, or producing as market, marketing as art.
Is anyone really doing this now?
Are artists not in any way also responsible for the tone and texture of the current art market?
My immediate thought was no, they are participating in the process but to my mind they are more like pawns than rook.
The increase in size of the art market is an unusual event which is more or less permanent and similar to asset value increases in other hard assets. The rapid increase in capital, in particular speculative capital created a demand in the market place and naturally there was a rush to find new artists and work to supply this demand. I think this is a partial reason for the "grab em right out of art school" phenomena. Of course an artist can say "no" but why should they? Who wouldn't jump at the chance to trade off working under a little market pressure for working with ones back to the wall financially?
The current art market is controlled by its market makers. As capital flows into the art market increased they put upward pressure on pricing and the galleries and auction houses responded by bring work to market in a careful way designed to move prices higher. Pricing for historical masterworks moved sharply higher leaving a price tier void. Validated contemporary work, Richard Prince et al, was moved up a notch or two in the pricing tier. This also had the affect of raising the gallery prices for their work, creating again another void in the market place which was filled with a fresh crop of young artists (which I happen to think is great)
This whole question is totally an issue about market dynamics and marketing. The tone, gushy or otherwise is a side effect, a result of careful marketing tactics which were designed to move prices higher to meet the expanding demand. Most artists really don't have any control over this process, in the financial part of the art world the artist is a pawn.
What George said. Edward, I think it's admirable that you're standing up for the artist because it is your job as a dealer to represent, um, artists.
As an artist, my role is different than yours. I get a ticket to watch, and my opportunities are somewhat dictated by what the market does. But my agency is limited. I can stay and play the game or I can go make my own weather somewhere else. I actually wrote about this today if I may be so bold.
I chose to think about all this from the perspective of what I can control. I can't control the market. As a dealer, do you feel like you can control the market? I am curious about how much agency you feel like you have, and what kinds of daily choices you make (like this blog, or your submissions policy, which are both generous) to keep your practice aligned with what you find virtuous.
I posted my thoughts on this topic yesterday.
My concern with the New Yorker's arts coverage is not so much the attention given to non-artists (although 170 words for the WhiBi seems out of wack in comparison to the 10 or so pages on Meyer), but as Edward put it, "the free pass those non-artists are getting, the non-critical examination, especially when there's arguably a great deal to criticize about the current system."
The Meyer article is clearly a puff piece, and alarmingly so, considering the well-known corruption scandals of his business and how they largely shape the course of the art market. Saltz was right on the money in calling it as it is.
I agree with George when he wrote "Most artists really don't have any control over this process, in the financial part of the art world the artist is a pawn." Artists have very little control over what is seen -- the gatekeepers of the art market do. They can make all the brilliant work they want, but it will sit and rot in storage unless the market deems it valuable.
Auctioneers-as-artists anyone?
MO artists have no responsibility for the tone and texture of the current market
I'm not comfortable with this portrait of powerless artists. Of course it's extremely unlikely that an artist can simply decide "I'm going to be the next big thing" and have it happen... but gallery owners, curators, and critics can't really do that single-handedly either.
Also, artists have the power to opt-out of the the commericial art market (ala the earthworks artists, etc).
Take a look inside the artist's studio. Visit the "Philosophy of One", the studio journal of James Wolanin
http://jameswolanin.blogspot.com/
There was a show here in Santa Monica a couple of months ago of photographs by an artist who also happens to be a movie star (he was in the Lord of the Rings movies, I think). The night of the opening there was a line around the block of adoring fans waiting to get in. Openings at other nearby galleries had pretty normal attendance that night, but this one was packed.
I was at a friend's opening across the street, and went over to check it out (the line was gone by this time). What I found interesting is that the guy's work wasn't bad, but nobody was looking at it! They were all crowded around him!
Those of us who care about the art itself are a fairly small minority. What really sells is celebrity. It's only when an artist becomes a celebrity (or when a celebrity becomes an artist) that the general public really pays attention.
The Meyer article is clearly a puff piece, and alarmingly so
To me it was a kick off for the funding drive mentioned therein.
James,
I see nothing about the topic at hand on your blog. It's fine to use links to your blog in your name, but I don't like folks interjecting advertising in the middle of conversations for its own sake...I'll leave it this time, but ask that you consider why it's not fair to the other bloggers who only link back to their own site when they're pointing to a related discussion.
thanks,
Ed
I'm not comfortable with this portrait of powerless artists. Of course it's extremely unlikely that an artist can simply decide "I'm going to be the next big thing" and have it happen... but gallery owners, curators, and critics can't really do that single-handedly either.
Also, artists have the power to opt-out of the the commericial art market (ala the earthworks artists, etc).
Bingo!
Bingo!
E: if you so enthusiastically agree that "artists have the power to opt-out of the commercial art market" then I would love to hear some examples of important contemporary artists displaying this power (aside from those independently wealthy).
I would argue that artists not exhibiting in commercial venues don't receive lasting critical attention. Artists are certainly not powerless, but the 'commercial' art market is so relentlessly linked to the 'critical' art world that it's become increasingly difficult for financially-unsuccessful work to receive serious attention.
The art press tends to follow the money first, art second -- as continually demonstrated by the NYer's coverage.
Also, artists have the power to opt-out of the commercial art market (ala the earthworks artists, etc).
Well, not really. It appears that eventually such endeavors are also consumed by the marketplace, or the marketplace is used as a source of funding a la Christo. The marketplace is what it is, helpful or ugly depending on the moment. I still think the greatest danger for the artist is becoming preoccupied with the marketplace in relationship to ones work. While an understanding of the mechanism might be beneficial, allowing it into the studio is probably not.
Artsoldier, I respectfully disagree.
I got a lot of good mentoring from really successful people who all said variations on the same thing: Make it happen and let them follow you. None of them could tell you how they became important to the larger art historical/critical discussion. They just did it, and were lucky.
An art career is such an enormous risk. I am not belittling your truth--artmaking is expensive, none of us can live on air, and the market is a bestower of all...eventually. But you're setting yourself up to play behind the curve.
if you so enthusiastically agree that "artists have the power to opt-out of the commercial art market" then I would love to hear some examples of important contemporary artists displaying this power (aside from those independently wealthy).
Cai Guo-Qiang springs to mind.
My point is, I can't stand the idea that artist are somehow slaves to the market. If anyone is able to break the system it will undoubtedly have to be an artist...don't look to dealers or curators or auctioneers...if the system is offensive, then artists will have to lead the way to make it less so...if the system's OK as is, then alright...carry on.
But given that the only one with the power to change it are artists themselves, I can't accept the idea that artists are mere pawns. Build a better mousetrap...make ridiculously large editions...return to conceptualism...SOMETHING...just don't bellyache that the system has to change in order for artists to feel better about participating in it. Artists are part of the problem (editions of three or two or one for large glossy photographs...what the fuck???). Did their dealers MAKE them do that? Why didn't they fight back?
You want a revolution? Make your photos an edition of a billion. Sell your canvases in groups of 60 only. Make your drawings available to take home only after you're dead. Take the money now, but keep the drawings in your studio. Those unwilling to wait, won't ever get one.
I don't know...I'M NOT AN ARTIST. You folks are. Shake things up.
If your dealer throws a fit, find a new dealer, but either take control or stop complaining.
...and with that...I'm off to lunch.
As an artist, I rather enjoy getting information on the movers and shakers of the art world.
if the system is offensive, then artists will have to lead the way to make it less so...if the system's OK as is, then alright...carry on.
I disagree. Every participant in the art system is inherently involved in a political stance that, through their actions, either affirms or criticizes the current system. The New Yorker's Meyer piece is an enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement for one of the shadiest parts of the contemporary art system -- art auctions. Those of us who find the system to be diseased -- whether artists, dealers, critics, etc. -- were rightly disappointed by the New Yorker's stance and have criticized it.
But it's unfair (and unreasonable) to expect that artists be the only ones capable of changing a sickened art market system. The responsibility rests on everyone involved in the system, because they all share in supporting it. That being said, I don't think artists can change the system with their work -- it has to be accomplished outside of their art practice (which is asking much). The powerlessness of so-called "institutional critique" work has been demonstrated by its complete absorption into the system it's trying to critique. One only needs to look at the current Biennial for evidence.
But it's unfair (and unreasonable) to expect that artists be the only ones capable of changing a sickened art market system.
I didn't say they had to be the only ones...just that they had to lead the way. If artists continue to make work that feeds nicely into the system as it currently stands, that system will grow. You can't expect others to lead the way and ask artists to follow...that's simply more of the same problem, IMO.
It seems to me that the current discussion is more framed by economics than by anything. It is like musical chairs. When the collectors run out of money all of the artists who were doing non-marketable work anyway will start to look very very interesting.
E_, you wrote: But given that the only one with the power to change it are artists themselves,
and then I wrote: But it's unfair (and unreasonable) to expect that artists be the only ones capable of changing a sickened art market system.
Not seeing the difference there. Regardless, those in the system (such as yourself), have much already invested in the system and therefore much to lose. It's understandable that it would be difficult for those supported by the system to critique it -- but this is the most powerful form of critique available (criticism from within).
Art criticism's failure (as demonstrated by the NYer piece) is that it continues to cave to the demands of the market system by uncritically supporting its most disfunctional parts (i.e. corrupt auctions). By marrying art criticism with the demands of the market system, non-marketable art risks becoming irrelevant (by being ignored). If non-marketable art then becomes irrelevant to the system, it loses all power, and cannot hope to change it (from without the system). The only alternative would be to create an alternative system. Is this really desirable (or even possible)?
Besides, is there not value in both marketable work and non-marketable work? Marketable work isn't inherently undesirable simply because it is useful to the current market system. Would we not be condemning ourselves to an overly-limited art experience if we had to rely on only non-marketable work to fix a broken system?
I feel it's a balancing act, unless you're determined to spark revolution. Personally, I'm more concerned with finding live a satisfying, responsible life than "cleaning up" the Art World.
As I meet an increasing number of artists, curators and dealers, I feel more "plugged in" to the Art World proper. On the other hand, the more I learn about this island, the stronger my resolve to make a living on the periphery.
Is this possible? Sure, I think so.
Reading Art Soldier's call for names of artists who opted out of Art World reindeer games but still remain important (read: critically celebrated), I immediately think of Lee Bontecou. Not only is her work pertinent to the growing ranks of young artists, but her unorthodox approach - get the hell out of dodge and create in peace - is inspiring. I hope to do the same. Unfortunately, once I am living outside the city walls, there is no guarantee I'll find an audience for my work inside. That's why, as Jake Berthot told me in grad school, "You can't put your trust in the Art World. It will just break your heart."
I don't hate the Art World, by any means, even if the system can seem ugly. As Edward suggests, blame can't always be laid at the foot of "the man," in this case the Art World establishment. At least half of the artists and curators I know personally love the Art World. It's a great big family for many people, and therein lies both its charm and its repulsion.
I suspect the art marketplace has become so big and powerful that it is unlikely a political response by the artist will have much affect. Some of the things which bother people, including the New Yorker articles, are usually warning signs that a market has overreached itself and needs to readjust. In the current situation a price correction will be a problem for art buyers who are primarily speculators. In a price correction, "investors" may call themselves collectors and wait the downturn out but the "speculator" is a different breed. The speculator is a player partly for the game, for the excitement of the "bet" and a good speculator knows when to quit and sell.
The reason I bring this up is that I have a hunch that a price pullback will have a more profound affect on the artmarket than anything else, "what goes up can also go down".
Never the less, I am glad that Saltz responded to the New Yorker. I think it is important that the other people in the artworld are aware of what the community thinks. It may not have a direct affect on changing things but it may put matters into perspective and I think that is positive.
This just popped in my head and is not well though out, but...
We create a parallel market based on merit. Artists may enroll in a guild which regulates the sale and re-sale of their work. The guild evaluates the work and grades artists. The guild determines price ranges for both the initial sale and the secondary market(allowing for healthy, but reasonable commissions and profits). Buyers sign on to the system and agree to substantial royalties to the artist if they re-sale higher than the established ceilings.
Such a system (with a GREAT deal of refinement and kink removal) could provide a tangible legitimacy for artists, collectors, and everyone in between ;). We create a prestigious market that specifically excludes speculative work (be it good or bad).
what a storm of thoughts, which i will undoubtedly have to read through a couple of times to really absorb. i have been struggling with the American Power structure in the art world for some time, and don't have a fully developed answer. I do however think that artists are responsible for their own situation. That may mean we can blame previous generations (like blaming your parents?) but we, the current generation are no less to blame.
If, as an artist, you are doing something interesting and original, then as Edward is saying, you will lead the way, the rest of the Art World (when did it get capitals?) will follow.
So take heed, and create your own path.
Sorry, I entirely forgot to mention a salient point in my post...
The British Art World seems to celebrate the clut of the artist over the cult of the collector (curator, dealer). This is due in no small part to the efforts of the YBA (love them or hate them), and their own celebration of themselves. Fresh out of grad school they created their own marketing, exhibitions and interest, which of course was picked up quickly by media and money. (See the New York Magazine article on Tracey Emin, for more on this.
Carla, who will be the decision-makers in this guild? And how will they stay free of conflict of interest (i.e. voting their own work, or their friends' work in or pricing it high)? We exist under capitalism and we have to be a part of it. Unless we opt out of the whole market system in every aspect of our lives (join a commune? grow our own food? live off the grid?), I don't see how any kind of secession by artists from the market will work.
I also think a certain amount of this complaining on the part of artists is disingenuous and is based on the fact that they personally are not raking in the bucks. Yes, the system is unfair, based on fashion, too influenced by collectors, etc., but honestly, the biggest problem I have with it is that I'm not one of the artists riding the wave. At the times when my work has sold well, I was pretty happy with the system.
Comrade Oriane,
It's not about opting out, it's about creating a competing system which is guided by integrity. It's about using fear-based marketing for good…to push one product, great art/artists, over another, fashionable art/artists.
The frustration felt with the current market is that it makes the intrinsic value of art irrelevant.
The ‘guild’ system itself will be a behemoth of regulations. It will require transparency and ethics rules (for conflicts of interest, etc.), and objective criteria for grading work. It will never be perfect but this board can be structured to offer a reliable evaluation of work.
Perhaps limiting the price to ensure integrity is just commie talk. I’m thinking of prices high enough to live well on, and for all involved to profit from.
It's a union one joins which makes monetary concessions in order to protect the value of their labor.
...objective criteria for grading work...
I don't know Carla, that part might be tough. The French Academy did it that way for years, and their system pretty much fell apart. Quite a number of artists felt excluded by the Academy's objective criteria, not to mention its internal politics. They opted out of the system (were rejected by it, actually) and joined the free market.
Besides the difficulty of getting consensus on those objective criteria among peers, much of the history of art has been defined by each successive generation rejecting the standards of the previous one. For better or worse, it's kept things interesting.
We all certainly have the option of not offering our work for sale, or of offering it outside the gallery system. But somehow I don't think coming up with a guild to define and enforce standards, as well-meaning as that idea is, will really make things better.
The criteria for grading the work becomes an issue for open debate, opposed to the dictatorship of (often personally invested)critics. Artists can actively appeal their score, etc. Even the evolution of standards can be addressed as an issue for deliberate discourse, which is kind of exciting. This can all be worked out in a way that is quite a bit better than the current system, in terms of maintaining the integrity of the product.
Just how much motivation is there for change? This is extreme and a pretty nutty, granted; more brainstormer than do-able. Anyone have something do-able?
After the revolution, I picture Tobias Meyer walking with other outcasts in a hidden camp in a forest reciting and memorizing banned statistics to himself: "I sold Picasso for 20 million."
This "union" or "guild" is an attempt to exert integrity from without. This leads to powerlessness, and on a large scale, fascism. I know this is an extreme example, and I only throw it out there because it's just a thought experiment... Hitler thought he was doing Germany and the rest of the world a real favor by increasing the integrity of the Aryan race.
I also disagree that the current market makes the intrinsic value of art irrelevant. In fact, the insanity and lack of integrity that often characterizes the art market is a function of art's inherently subjective and speculative nature. I would argue that imposing a system in which the value of a work is "known" would make the intrinsic value of art irrelevant. Art must engage, and be subject to, the whims of circumstance: the politicial, economic and social realities that shape our needs as consumers of culture.
Sorry, realized that it was pretty small of me to nyet nyet nyet without offering anything positive in return.
This sounds like a platitude, but integrity comes from within. I can't make the art world have integrity. But I can approach the art world with integrity and insist on relationships with integrity.
"Art must engage, and be subject to, the whims of circumstance: the politicial, economic and social realities that shape our needs as consumers of culture."
Nicely put. I enjoyed your comments on interconnected relationship between art and the market.
Thanks, Carla. I also want to thank you for providing the opportunity to think about the power of personal integrity in general, it's something I struggle with in my own practice.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home