Tuesday, March 24, 2009

And the Winners Are....The Lawyers!

Three, no scratch that, four developments within the art world within the last year point to the fact that even as the economic downturn negatively impacts artists, collectors, galleries, museums, and publications alike, these are not likely to be the least lucrative times for arts attorneys. Whether hired to write/review the newer, stricter contracts you're likely to see between 1) artists and galleries or 2) collectors and museums or hired to enforce the terms of contracts either 3) verbal or 4) written, it looks like legalese will be flowing through the industry like champagne used to. I refer, of course, to the following cases:

1. Whereas an artist of Damien Hirst's stature could get away with eliminating the middleman and taking his art straight to auction (see this Wall Street Journal summary of the issues that raised), as I've noted before, this move is very likely to lead to tighter terms that take this potential into consideration in artist representation contracts with galleries. It's not in the gallery's best interests to build an artist's market just to have the artist cut them out down the road. I haven't heard of any new representation contracts with tighter reins just yet, but then again, most galleries are focused on staying afloat at the moment (which doesn't bode well for how generous the terms will be they'll offer new artists coming in either). Mr. Hirst may have had impeccable timing for himself, but I don't think he did the next generation of artists who'll be signing representation contracts any favors.

2. As Rose Art Museum director Michael Rush noted at the X-Initiative Town Meeting last Thursday (again, see James Wagner for a summary), the Brandeis University Board's decision to close the museum so they could sell off its "permanent" collection without any "ethical issues" getting in their way, will undoubtedly lead collectors considering donating work to museums to only do so under much stricter conditions. Ensuring they have airtight contracts that will prevent greedy entities that control the museum from later flogging their gifts in fire sales won't make sorting out the terms for such donations any easier for collectors or museums, but it will help some attorney's bottom line.

3. Dealers suing collectors will not make dealing any more cordial, but, it seems it's here:
[via artinfo.com] "Mary Boone Gallery is suing an Ohio collector in an attempt to compel her to complete her purchase of a painting, Artnet reports.

Mary Kidder, a trustee of the Columbus Museum of Art, first saw the painting in question, a piece by Will Cotton, at Mary Boone's booth at Art Basel Miami Beach 2008. The work, Ribbon Candy, was priced at $50,000, but the gallery sold it to Kidder at a discounted price of $32,000, "in recognition of Kidder's prominence in the art world and the gallery's desire to do business with her.""
From artnet.com comes my favorite response to this news:
What are the prospects of the lawsuit? Well, you can never tell, though New York attorney John Koegel suggests that the gallery’s argument contravenes both ordinary commercial practice as well as regulations covering purchases for more than $500. "To make a contract of sale binding," said the lawyer, "it has to be in writing." One might note, as well, that it must be hard to stay in business on deals that net a mere $2,000."
4. But dealers aren't the only ones with lawyers.
[also via artinfo.com]: Florida collector George Weiss is suing Christie’s over an unpaid guarantee of approximately $40 million, Bloomberg reports.

Weiss offered Francis Bacon’s Study for Self Portrait No. 1 from 1964 at Christie’s November 2008 Postwar and Contemporary Art sale in New York. But the lot, which had been expected to bring in the evening's highest price, died without any actual bidding at $27.5 million.

According to a complaint filed last week in federal court in New York, Weiss claims that Christie’s failed to follow through on its guarantee, citing “the changed climate of the art market.”
As I've noted before, when buying art stops being fun, you can expect far fewer people to do it. Having said that, at dinner last night with friends who spend a good deal of time in Europe each year, it came up that collectors there are less likely to be super-wealthy. Unlike in America, where many people only come to collecting after they've purchased multiple homes or that third sports car, middle-class to lower upper-class Europeans buy original art (within their means, of course) even if they rent their apartments. It's more of a personal priority there, as opposed to a "what else are we going to spend all that money on" type luxury it is here.

Rather than becoming all the more litigious (a highly unfortunate American tendency), I wish the US art industry could focus more on building a broader market among less affluent Americans. More art in more homes could support more artists and galleries...all these lawsuits are only serving to scare folks away, I fear.

Labels: lawsuit, legal matters


Blogger George said...

The Sotheby's Hirst sale is more of a indictor of a market top than anything else. He is one of the few artists who is able to command sufficient interest to support such a sale. It might be that artists try to auction individual pieces as part of a larger contemporary auction. There is a degree of market pricing risk in this strategy which would make sense only in a hot art market, something which we aren't about to see anytime soon.

3/24/2009 08:50:00 AM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

Aside from the thicket of lawsuits (kind of like wolves fighting over scraps at the end of a feast) - I do agree with a possible direction forward - Can the art world broaden it's horizons and convince ordinary Americans to purchase original art?

I know of a lot of people of similar means to mine (upper half of the middle class) who could afford to collect, but tend towards framed posters and family photos only.

3/24/2009 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Bromo says "I know of a lot of people... who could afford to collect, but tend towards framed posters and family photos only."

I wonder why this is? It makes sense that many people cannot justify spending the money for artworks. Of those who might, what might cause them to be reluctant? Somewhere in this I wonder if potential collectors are unsure about what they might buy, about how they might explain it to their friends.

Certainly, the rhetoric used to promote art over the last several years has been fairly opaque and undecipherable. I suspect this was part of "in crowd" marketing but at the present it just seems stupid. It the art market is going to attract new collectors it would seem that a bit of straight talk is a better solution. I'm just speculating...

3/24/2009 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

"More art in more homes ..."

I'm afraid most Americans feel there's no good reason to buy and own new, original art unless it serves a useful function - as an investment, or as proof of achieving higher social status. So who knows? The fact that more lawyers are getting involved in the art world might convince more Americans that new, original art is something valuable - socially and financially. The possibility that our culture might change, and Americans might start wanting to own art for its own sake (because it enriches life in intangible ways) is not a possibility I'm optimistic about.

3/24/2009 09:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps everyone was busy during the Artfairs....but Channel 2 news ran a story during the fair at every news time, 11pm 5am noon, 6pm etc about a dealer who "basically stole" a Bougereau painting from a convent by telling them it was work say 200 hundred thou, and then flipping it to the collector he was in cahoots with. While they said there was nothing legally wrong with this, & contracts were signed,art dealers are wolves in sheeps clothing, & should not be trusted. Adding that if they can steal from nuns, what are they going to do to the average joe. This is a long way from the puff pieces they have usually done during the fairs in years past. Watch out world....

3/24/2009 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Defeatist attitude

I'm afraid most Americans feel there's no good reason to buy and own an ATV or a snowmobile but they still sell them. Art and craft stores stores do a reasonably good business which one could take to indicate that at least some part of society has a creative streak.

I don't think that viewing art as an investment, or as proof of achieving higher social status, is the sole reason people collect. The demographics I mentioned before have changed the art marketplace, there are more potential collectors than ever before and this number is increasing. These are people who want to own art for its own sake not as an investment or some other social reason.

3/24/2009 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger eageageag said...

"I suspect this was part of "in crowd" marketing but at the present it just seems stupid. It the art market is going to attract new collectors it would seem that a bit of straight talk is a better solution. I'm just speculating..."

Sounds like class warfare and anti-intellectualism to me (tongue in cheek).

3/24/2009 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

art dealers are wolves in sheeps clothing, & should not be trusted

Yeah, and anonymous commentors are all psychopathic serial killers on the lam who should be tracked down, locked up, and force medicated for life to protect the rest of society.

Seriously, dude, get a grip.

3/24/2009 10:08:00 AM  
Anonymous anon2 said...

Ed, I think that anonymous was just trying to communicate the tone and underlying message of the newscast, not agreeing with it!

3/24/2009 10:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

Tom Hering:
++++own art for its own sake
+++(because it enriches life in +++intangible ways) is not a +++possibility I'm optimistic about.

And do you really really want someone buying you art just because it's an investment?
Are you kidding me? No way! Art has to become something else than objects that people buy.

Maybe dealers shoud rent to museums, and that be their business.

Lol, that Bougereau scam was nasty. But these scams are all
over the places in every businesses, not just art.
Scamming is one of the greatest adventure that humanity
will be remembered for.

Cedric Casp

3/24/2009 10:16:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Ed, I think that anonymous was just trying to communicate the tone and underlying message of the newscast, not agreeing with it!

Ahhh...I'm sorry. I think you're right.

Read it much too quickly. Anon 1, please accept my apology.

3/24/2009 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

Cedric Casp, you asked "Do you really want someone buying you art just because it's an investment?"

No, I don't - a desire I thought was clearly expressed. (Internet communication - the ultimate misunderstanding multiplier.)

George, you remarked "Defeatist attitude."

Not at all. Admitting a problem (in this case, a problem our culture has) is the first step toward dealing with it constructively. And I did speak of most Americans (the context was: expanding the art market). I do realize that some American collectors love art for its own sake.

3/24/2009 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Julie Sadler said...

I feel the American attitude about art stems from our oh-so uncreative Educational System. We go to school and it isn't the art department that gets the funds or the attention. It's the football team. And...it's the boys football team>>we even get down on gender!! In fact, schools take great pains to beat the creativity out of students (for control purposes, for example) and by the time we are adults, we are really good at suppressing our unique tendencies. Where along the way were you guided or encouraged to exercise your artistic talents? Maybe kindergarten.

As long as we are trained and brainwashed from such a young age in school as to our likes and dislikes as a culture and society, we will never see art take prominence any more than it already has. That doesn't mean it won't change. I just think we need to start from day one.

3/24/2009 11:15:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Tom, I don't think there is a problem, art has an large audience but fewer collectors. I suspect this is the way it has always been and that the issue is to address these potential collectors.

I don't think it has much to do with our educational system, football is important but museums outdraw professional sports events in terms of attendance. I think the notion that kids are "brainwashed" away from art is nonsense. Our society has developed many other artistic outlets besides the fine arts, there are more choices for the creative.

3/24/2009 11:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Larry said...

Bromo says "I know of a lot of people... who could afford to collect, but tend towards framed posters and family photos only."

To play devil's advocate (and though I collect original art, I have friends who feel exactly this way): If I buy a poster from MoMA or the Met, I know I'm getting a replica of a renowned artists' work. It may not be a very good reproduction, but at least I know I'm getting something that's been validated by a trustworthy source, that I like myself, and that costs a tiny fraction of an original modern painting. If I like VanGogh, why shouldn't I want on my walls a souvenir of a VanGogh I can see "live" only on the few times a year when I travel to the museum, rather than an original by an unknown artist I don't like half as well?

3/24/2009 12:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most(ly) art is made for museums/curators, rich people and other artists. Thats the case in the big art cities like NY, LA, London and Berlin, etc. When artists start making art for the people then you will see it in their homes.

Audience? Vampires (movies, books...) have a bigger audience than art.

3/24/2009 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

anon 12:28


3/24/2009 01:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

Tom, somehow I meant to ask to every artists "out there".
That was badly expressed. It should have been "And do we?".

Museums have bigger attendances in Europa.

I wonder if an artist can ask their dealer "only sell to museums, please?".

Cedric Casp

3/24/2009 01:26:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

Never let them see you sweat
-Some dude.

Man what happened to old school gentility? In the old days people would just pack up and go into semi-retirement than sweat a down market. Deal privately.

Are there mitigating circumstances with Mary Boone or what? It is unseemly to call in a debt with legal means. It shows weakness.

But collectors have some nerve, putting holds and reserves on work and then running like scared children when the sky falls.

I mean, plausible deniability is better than direct action when it comes to keeping up appearances isn't it?

Like Gagosian isn't manning his own door, he has the goon squad do that.
WOuld you burn that bridge if you valued it?

I don't think Artnet likes Mary Boone, quite frankly. I got no beef with her though - but I always thought she should have done something to the ceiling because it looks like a barn.

My guess is legal action takes the pressure off of the individual and turns it into a purely institutional thing. I cant imagine anyone would sue an individual - it would be social suicide.

And I never wanted to sell to museums or warehouses or money laundering schemes. Most artists want to sell to individuals for homes. I think that's the big difference between people who only talk about money and artists is.

But people have to figure out their price points.

3/24/2009 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

It shows weakness. :-)

3/24/2009 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Bromo Ivory said...

When I was starting to educate myself about contemporary art, it certainly seemed that there were lots of inside commentary and inside jokes in a lot of art that was inscrutable to me (and frankly, some still is - you need to really keep up with it and be part of "the inside" to get all of it). Made me wonder about the relevance to a greater audience.

After some more self education, I concluded that *some* art is that way but the best stuff has a context a bit wider and a little more accessible.

I wonder if some of the function of the art world would be to construct a bigger tent - explain some of the jokes, dump some of the jargon? I wonder if the web would does help with this?

3/24/2009 02:20:00 PM  
Anonymous nemastoma said...

It's funny to watch detective TV series from Germany, for example. In every middle class house the detective goes to investigate a crime, you'll see paintings hanging on the wall. You'd never see much of that in a typical house in a US detective series, a couple of framed photos at the most, with most of the rest of the walls bare. It's a given that modest homes in western Europe will have original paintings hanging on their walls. It may not be expensive art, but they'll be originals.

3/24/2009 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger Catherine Spaeth said...

Well, there is much to be said about art tours. For someone to get up the nerve to be a first-time buyer, it entails a build-up of confidence in your own judgment - not excluding " I like what I see," but testing your preconceptions about art and becoming comfortable with a knowledge that has been earned through that testing. Much of loving art has to do with a love for dialogue, too, which is why so many are totally seduced by he jokes. As Bromo Ivory suggests, you need to get past this stuff and learn where your own feet are standing in a contemporary art world context. And to really enjoy this part of it.

Gallerists are helpful, sure, but having a mentor that is not promoting their own stable and can allow one to really investigate their own experiences is so valuable, right there where the art is. This is without art consulting, mind you.

There's tons of very highly educated people with the resources to moderately collect. They just don't know how fun it is yet to spend a day looking at and thinking about all the stuff that nags at them in every wrong direction before something starts to feel right. And how satisfying it is to really care about why.

3/24/2009 02:59:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

A lot of art dealers and gallerists shield the artist from the collector - both by being present as na intermediary and by the slaes patter.

I don't blame dealers for wanting to keep the two worlds - collector and artist - separate (outside of the requisite after show dinner) but what I hear coming out of the mouths of dealers seems so alien to me as an artist - say the the hyberbolic absurdity of calling an artist the next Genius without much of a track record (I mean it does take a special mind to see Genius where others see a retread or a developing promise).

Not to mention the hackneyed idea that "artists are crazy" or "difficult" - I mean as a collector you should hear alarm bells when someone tells you that only they can talk to god.

Because artists are the creators, godlike, capricious, devious and untrustworthy. Egotistical backstabbing and louche.

Definitely get a lawyer before signing in blood.

It goes down the same as the thousand before
No one's getting smarter
No one's learning the score

3/24/2009 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger Sean Capone said...

"I wish the US art industry could focus more on building a broader market among less affluent Americans. More art in more homes could support more artists and galleries."

This gallery market is already in existence; but it's looked down at from the gallerists & art people as not being part of the contemporary discourse--truthfully enough--the portrait/folk art/ seascape galleries that line the boardwalks and main streets of every art-colony/college town in America. The folks that buy art this way are buying it cuz they can look at it, understand it right away, & yes, treat it as a decorative element in their homes. Also, Ed, I assume that by "less affluent" you're not talking about Joe Lunchpail but rather people who are already pretty upper-middle-class at least. Just to use my parents as an example, they are fairly well-off & educated and display many painting, photos, textiles & crafty bits in their home (my mom has a pretty good eye--wish I would've inherited some a' that..). But much of the important work being made and celebrated in the contemporary art world is not work which is possible or even particularly desirable to possess within a 'modest' home.

There is a schism that took place, a kind of conceptualist de-regulation of aesthetics within the art world, a void which has been filled with modern design and the resurgence of contemporary craft. I forget who wrote this quip, but a lot of work is "more interesting to read about than to take the trouble to go look at."

Not to say that 'pretty' work has to be conceptually or intellectually empty (I wonder how my mom would feel about John Currin). But the art world has to start validating artists who are intent on making aesthetically pleasing and craft-rigorous objects for this to happen. Already many younger artists are creating successful practices outside the walls of the gallery system, now that there are more channels and mediums of distribution in today's culture. Look at the designer-toy collector craze going on right now, and speaking as a former comic-scifi geek I can assure you that even modest-income Americans will spend any amount of money to obtain and collect things that they are really passionate about & they feel are unique & pleasurable. If the pleasure-factory artists like Hirst and Murakami were sincere about taking charge of the dialogue about art, commerce, & production, then every home in America would have a piece of theirs in its living room.

Ok,sorry to go off, I know this was a post about litigation, but Ed's last comment triggered my attention in this...

3/24/2009 04:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Julie Sadler I completely agree with you. And what's worse is I think that visual arts are the least valued in our school system. (I don't know how true that is elsewhere, but it certainly was where I grew up.) I've known so many people who love music, theater, books, film etc and have never set foot in a gallery and only go to museums when traveling if at all.

3/24/2009 04:26:00 PM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

Catherine makes a good point: That having an art "mentor" can help potential collectors make the leap from poster to original. But it does make one wonder about all the gallery talks and panel discussions that galleries and artists present. I guess we're just singing to the choir.

3/24/2009 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

That's the "Greek Chorus" Joanne - they are quite the gaggle!

3/24/2009 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger Catherine Spaeth said...

Joanne - It's a good choir. And it does a lot to promote, to build connections, to put a public face on things in terms of discourse. It helps people to think about what the heck they are doing when they publicly present in this way. It opens out identities, secures or makes vulnerable the "brand." There's nothing wasted in this.

3/24/2009 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...


You're right. The choir is a supportive entity, and talking about our work helps us in myriad ways. (I just did a post about this on my blog.) But I was thinking in terms of reaching the as-yet unreached. That's where the art tours, dealers' talks and other kinds of outreach some in.

3/24/2009 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

...all these lawsuits are only serving to scare folks away, I fear.

Indeed. Fear seems like the rampant emotion now but maybe a scare is good for what ails us? Whatever, I suspect it's only momentary, this lawsuit news, just a blip in google analytics that will dissipate with time.

Remember, BOO is the start of Bootie.. :-)

3/24/2009 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

The "brand" is always vulnerable because it targets the wrong ideology of product. Artists are stars, it is their identity that give their art its uniqueness.

3/24/2009 07:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Casp said...

I don't see any major solo museum show by Will Cotton on his CV. It's all Mary boone, Silverstein and other galleries. Is this really worth 50 000 ?? Or is it a case of "ok, this is worth 20 000, so I'll pretend it's 50 000 so that it sells for 32 000"

How is the art valued? Because a couple overclass will pay anything without asking?

Will Cotton is a proof that in Chelsea you have an art market that bypasses the museal culture.

Boone's attacking a museum trustee, what a silly move. The artist should jump dealer, this is not good for him.

Not that I'm gonna do anything to pretend that his art is a cultural necessity.

Cedric Casp

3/25/2009 12:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Said said...

A rare museum appearance by Will Cotton was a group show at Columbus Museum Of Art.



3/25/2009 01:06:00 AM  
Blogger Brandon Juhasz said...

Just a little thought about why art isn't more mainstream. I think that people (broad generalization here)or we live in a culture were the things we buy have no value except its immediate purpose, i.e. disposable. And hence the popularity of the cheapest goods possible from places like Walmart and Target. So to purchase something for quite a lot of money to hang on the wall is a foreign concept. Let alone something that needs explaining or that can't be played with. Our mainstream interests just don't fit with contemplative, quietness of owning art. Culture is instant gratification and toys. Art is very different than that. Its about bang for your buck. We like "value" like cheap not "value" like it has intrinsic cultural meaning.

3/25/2009 07:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspe said...

George, you are an artist, right?
Do you consider yourself a "star"?

I dunno, some artists definitely
have the personas but I love
art from others which are
somewhat boring persons
(more like, shy and reserved)
when you meet them.

Brandon, to me visual arts is totally an entertainment.
It's intellectual but it's also quite fun. When it's tragic
it's the same as a greek tragedy.


3/25/2009 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

... Just a little thought about why art isn't more mainstream....

Do we really want it to be? With 'mainstream' you get Kincade and a host of others who make art for popular tastes. There's a big market there, if that's what you want to go for.

3/25/2009 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

George, I would say most of us don't want art to be more mainstream. We want the mainstream to be more open to art - of a more challenging, and thus, more rewarding kind. We'd like more people to share the amazing experiences we have in our engagement with art.

3/25/2009 09:49:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I think Tom's on the right track here. Earlier, Sean noted that many Americans have purchased "the portrait/folk art/ seascape galleries that line the boardwalks and main streets of every art-colony/college town in America." And while I too have such work in my collection and enjoy it, I reap rewards from more challenging work that I buy beyond the comforts/pleasure of decoration and nostalgia. I look toward the more challenging pieces to continue to reveal things to me, throughout my life, and there's nothing better than that you can buy IMO.

3/25/2009 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Brandon Juhasz said...

Good point. mainstream isn't a good word, how about a wide spread acceptance of the principles and idea's with in art and how they manifest themselves in the end product: a sale-able piece of original art, i.e. public acceptance of art. I say no-no to Kincade clones. I say yes to art being valued and understood for what it is and then collected and purchased more frequently by farther reaching demographics.

3/25/2009 10:01:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Cedric, of course :-)

My remark was addressing the concept of "branding" which I find to be an excessively mercantile term to express an artists identity. "He's the guy that does boxes", is that how you want to be described.

Within the panoply of Modern Art, art of the last century and a half, the art we consider important, great and memorable, possess the quality of identity, we can link the art work to the artist.

Identity can be seen as 'branding' but it is not the same, it is a connection between the artists persona and the work they produce. It is a greater, and more profound relationship than mere 'style' and it can encompass varied stylistic developments within an artists oeuvre.

The work of great artists has identity, we know where the work comes from, hence they are stars, there are no exceptions

3/25/2009 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger George said...


It is for the right art.

In both NYC and LA, crowds were lined up around the block, for the Basquiat retrospective, his works touch a nerve, that's all you need.

3/25/2009 10:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

People like Monet (once challenging) influenced a century of everyday copycats. Not one trying to mean in any way that they can outdo Monet. They borrows the tricks of Monet because they see them as aesthetically effective.

Find me one contemporary artist who everyone will borrow tricks from for their own personal expression, and you have a winne. That's how humanity builds up.

Now...I've tried cutting an irregular geometrical shape on a large piece of paper, to put it on a wall and imagine it as emulating a Tuttle piece. I wasn't convinced. If I imitate a Judd, then I'm very convinced.

If people buy posters of Mona Lisa, I should be able to buy a DIY version of a Judd at Ikea.
Now that would be truly pertinent.

Cedric Caspesyan

3/25/2009 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Brandon Juhasz said...

interesting distinctions,

identity= existential-ness, the being of the artist and the output that is created from within

branding=a selling tool. Meaning inferred upon the artist from an outside source. Like a logo.

3/25/2009 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger George said...


Yes. I find "branding" to be an offensive term used by lesser artists trying to market themselves. 'Style' is still used without the negative connotations, street artists use "my style" as an equivalency for "my identity"

"The guy who does boxes." could be Cornell but you would never mistake one of his for anyone elses.

3/25/2009 10:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Hering said...

As someone who is "on the right track" (obviously, I am not myself today), I am in a position to say that George is on the right track, too. To experience art is to experience another person, and to experience them in a privileged way. (The exhibition of art is an act of vulnerable self-revelation.) To experience an amazing work of art is to experience an amazing person - an amazing inner life. Now, how do we encourage more people to get to know another person - an artist - through their art? Well, we share our love of art with other people through conversation. We invite them to go and look at art with us, and continue the conversation. We make friends for art by being a friend to others. It's the only approach that stands a chance of changing our culture, little by little, IMO.

3/25/2009 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Belvoir said...

"One might note, as well, that it must be hard to stay in business on deals that net a mere $2,000."

It wasn't mentioned here, but that quip comes from Boone's assertion in her suit that she had already paid Cotton the rest for the sale, $30k.

This is strange on many levels. Are we meant to believe Cotton received such a high percentage , Boone only takes $2k on the sale of a $32,000 painting? If this goes to court, it ought to be interesting to hear her explain this. Dubious.

3/25/2009 04:45:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

You wear a brand on your ass and and your identity on your sleeve. So I;ve heard.

Artists like Warhol like to talk about Branding BECAUSE it is a "vulgar" term. Me, I;m not so into tablecloths and all that fancy theatrical salt shaker stuff. Just pour it from the tub you hauled it from the mine in.

3/25/2009 05:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspes said...

Anything a person does speaks of his or her inner life. That's not the exclusivity of visual arts.

People can be amazing from anything.

Cedric Casp

3/25/2009 05:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home