Just What Is It That Makes Today's Abstract Paintings so Different, so Lucrative?
Let me get this out of the way. We own a good number of abstract paintings in our personal collection, and we enjoy them all. We've shown abstract paintings in our gallery (although perhaps not as much as other galleries tend to). I don't have anything against abstract paintings. I'm simply, and quite sincerely, trying to figure out why the emerging end of the contemporary art market has such a hard-on for them over other types of work.
As Bloomberg arts reporter Katya Kazakina concluded in her must-read article on art flippers, "Abstract paintings tend to be the most popular among speculators." She illustrates what she means by "popular" with the following example:
Now it's entirely feasible that we're simply seeing a Golden Age of Contemporary Abstraction, and the work is simply wowing collectors more than other types of work being created. But that wouldn't explain why so much of this work then enters the secondary market so quickly:
Is it perhaps that in representational painting or photography or whatever, that the odds are more likely the work will include a human face, with a pair of piercing, perhaps even accusatory eyes? And that connection gives more flipping collectors pause for thought about what they're potentially doing to the artist's career?
I'm kidding. (Really, just had to throw that in there to get it out of my system.)
But, as Katya reports, there's no question that reckless flipping can harm an artist's career:
I don't have any insights into that I'm confident enough about to share. I certainly have no desire to impugn any artists making abstract paintings or collectors who truly love them. If you love making or buying abstract paintings, please, please continue.
I am concerned, however, that this specific market trend is impacting not only the decisions that collectors are increasingly making, but how that influences the decisions that dealers and even artists themselves make as well.
The percentage of abstract paintings compared with other types of work exhibited at many emerging contemporary art fairs these days, for example, is very telling. This is how many emerging galleries are sustaining themselves. And while no one wants to name names here, very few of the curators or other dealers talking about this trend are shy about saying how much of that work strikes them as derivative or mediocre at best.
Other types of artwork are being made, exhibited and purchased, clearly. So there is no crisis here. But the accumulative impact of the combination of how much more art dealers are selling at fairs (rather than out of their spaces) than ever before, how much more abstract painting is being exhibited at the some fairs than I ever recall being the case, and how much less opportunity that leaves artists not making abstract paintings, will unquestionably alter the cultural legacy of this particular time. Artwork that is collected stands a greater chance of being preserved than artwork that isn't.
Again, perhaps we're truly just seeing a Golden Age of abstract painting, and the market is indeed working to preserve the very best art of our time.
I'm kidding. (Really, just had to throw that in there to get it out of my system.)
It seems very clear to me that speculators are grossly favoring abstract painting over other types of contemporary art for other, less idealistic reasons. We owe it to our collective legacy to sort out why and, while still supporting and indeed celebrating the great artists creating great abstraction today, correct this imbalance.
As Bloomberg arts reporter Katya Kazakina concluded in her must-read article on art flippers, "Abstract paintings tend to be the most popular among speculators." She illustrates what she means by "popular" with the following example:
One of the most coveted young artists is Colombian-born, London-based Oscar Murillo, 28, who is known to paint with a broomstick. In 2011, his works were priced from $2,500 to $8,500, according to dealer Francois Ghebaly, who sold them at a Miami art fair. [...] Last year, 24 Murillo pieces generated a combined $4.8 million at auction, according to Artnet. The priciest was the 2011 canvas “Untitled (Drawings off the wall)” marked with doodles, dirt and stains, which sold for a record $401,000 at Phillips in New York on Sept. 19. The consignor acquired it for about $7,000 in 2011, according to Simchowitz, meaning a profit of 5,600 percent. [you read that right...5,600%]Other artists she cites as being popular with speculators include Alex Israel, Petra Cortright, Christian Rosa, David Ostrowski, Parker Ito, Israel Lund, and Fredrik Vaerslev, each of whose practice includes (mostly to a large degree) abstract painting. Katya cites other examples of speculator-favored artists not known for abstract paintings, but the inclination here seems clear.
Now it's entirely feasible that we're simply seeing a Golden Age of Contemporary Abstraction, and the work is simply wowing collectors more than other types of work being created. But that wouldn't explain why so much of this work then enters the secondary market so quickly:
From 2011 through 2013, the number of works three years old or younger sold at auction topped 7,300 annually, compared with 4,023 in 2007 when the art market was peaking [...] As traders seek to lock up profits, a picture can change hands five or six times within a year.My suspicion is that there's something about abstract painting that lends itself more to these quick exchanges than other work, which isn't to suggest in any way -- and I want to be very clear about this -- that artists who like to make abstract paintings should change anything they do. But I can't help but wonder: just what is it that makes abstract paintings so much more prone to flipping?
Is it perhaps that in representational painting or photography or whatever, that the odds are more likely the work will include a human face, with a pair of piercing, perhaps even accusatory eyes? And that connection gives more flipping collectors pause for thought about what they're potentially doing to the artist's career?
I'm kidding. (Really, just had to throw that in there to get it out of my system.)
But, as Katya reports, there's no question that reckless flipping can harm an artist's career:
Many dealers say they refuse to sell to traders who dump works at auction because it hurts their business and the careers of the artists they represent. [...] When tastes shift, artists whose prices zoomed often are unable to sustain the momentum.So, what is it then? Why so much focus on one particular genre within one particular medium?
“One season means absolutely nothing in terms of secondary-market pricing,” said Bill Powers, owner of Half Gallery, which held Smith’s New York solo debut in November 2012. “The real question is: Can your prices hold in the seventh or eighth season you’ve been at auction?”
Anselm Reyle and Matthias Weischer, who were popular with speculators in the mid-2000s, saw their auction prices plummet since the 2008 financial crisis.
I don't have any insights into that I'm confident enough about to share. I certainly have no desire to impugn any artists making abstract paintings or collectors who truly love them. If you love making or buying abstract paintings, please, please continue.
I am concerned, however, that this specific market trend is impacting not only the decisions that collectors are increasingly making, but how that influences the decisions that dealers and even artists themselves make as well.
The percentage of abstract paintings compared with other types of work exhibited at many emerging contemporary art fairs these days, for example, is very telling. This is how many emerging galleries are sustaining themselves. And while no one wants to name names here, very few of the curators or other dealers talking about this trend are shy about saying how much of that work strikes them as derivative or mediocre at best.
Other types of artwork are being made, exhibited and purchased, clearly. So there is no crisis here. But the accumulative impact of the combination of how much more art dealers are selling at fairs (rather than out of their spaces) than ever before, how much more abstract painting is being exhibited at the some fairs than I ever recall being the case, and how much less opportunity that leaves artists not making abstract paintings, will unquestionably alter the cultural legacy of this particular time. Artwork that is collected stands a greater chance of being preserved than artwork that isn't.
Again, perhaps we're truly just seeing a Golden Age of abstract painting, and the market is indeed working to preserve the very best art of our time.
I'm kidding. (Really, just had to throw that in there to get it out of my system.)
It seems very clear to me that speculators are grossly favoring abstract painting over other types of contemporary art for other, less idealistic reasons. We owe it to our collective legacy to sort out why and, while still supporting and indeed celebrating the great artists creating great abstraction today, correct this imbalance.
posted by Edward_ at
9:16 AM
37 Comments:
I think Instagram is a potential trigger. Images move fluidly and all purchases are posted online before the work leaves the studio. It's a high school sport, where one collector is blowing another for collecting the same six artists. Obviously millions of other people are watching, and buying accordingly. The ears have certainly become hungrier than the eyes.
Contemporary abstraction is a perfect package, quickly made in a variety of colors and sizes. And btw, I love abstraction (and it's history in its entirety), so there are no biases based on genre over here.
Very well done piece Ed. Thank you for the post.
All good work is abstract so will call the "flippers" non-representational paintings, which at a superficial viewing can be effortlessly absorbed being obviously not offensive; often colorful and "easy to live with"- an expression that I never understood.
BUT if one views art through the prism of time, the best works -no matter what the medium, form, or style - will move us like the earth's strata to question, meditate and revel in its beauty and its evidence of humanity.
Abstract and non-representational painting, particularly of the currently ascendant process-based variety, is seen in the market as a step closer to a commodity for the simple reason that factors like composition and subject matter are less in play. Abstract series by the artists discussed here are, from a certain perspective, interchangeable, which makes for a simple value calculation.
Funny, I don't remember you fretting about our collective legacy when all this material was getting roundly ignored only a few years ago.
I don't remember collectors flipping the work as quickly as they are now back then, nor curators making a point of how derivative so mouth of the work seemed back then, or as much consistency in what is being presented in many art fairs back then either. In other words, things seem different. YMMV.
So much...not so mouth...
I love your observation about this type of work crowding out other work. This is often my concern with celebrity "creative expression" be it in any mode outside their celebrity...writing children's books, painting, photography, whatever. How much of it is worth all the light shining on it? And what work is crowded out?
In recent memory, only people I remember flipping so quickly were the people buying Banksy and all the Brit street artists. Flipped sometimes same day a print was released (POW) on ebay. Those were then again relisted, or sent to auction houses.
Because it's decorative.
What's grating here is, first of all, the total disdain of the possibility that the abstract work in question is our collective legacy, or at least a significant and valid part of it, and secondly, that's it's at odds with whatever you think is supposed to be our collective legacy.
The fact that it's enjoying a market vogue at the moment doesn't speak to its worth. That market vogue could disappear tomorrow and undoubtedly will disappear by next year. In the meantime it deserves the object-by-object consideration that everything else does, and it's clear that it's not going to receive it because of what I've long called "false pluralism," in which ostensibly everything is allowed but in reality practices that don't conform to postmodernist values are rejected out of hand.
Franklin, I feel you're so keen to insert what you've long considered an injustice into this conversation that you're misreading me here. The idea that any disdain you sense is "total" doesn't square with this:
"Now it's entirely feasible that we're simply seeing a Golden Age of Contemporary Abstraction, and the work is simply wowing collectors more than other types of work being created. But that wouldn't explain why so much of this work then enters the secondary market so quickly:."
Most of the comments that flesh out my opinion here are on Facebook unfortunately (I'm verbose enough as it is in most blog posts and my position here requires a more than usually complex list of factors), but there I do note how much of today's abstract painting I find lucious enough to eat. Moreover, my "disdain" for its cultural legacy value, (which I don't feel, but since you insist on viewing it that way), is also anything but "total," as the very last sentence in the post tried to make clear....we need to celebrate the great abstraction being made today, purchase it, and preserve it.
The alternative to my opinion that abstract painting doesn't represent as much of the only art being made that deserves to be preserved as theses trends (symbolized by the ludicrous 5,600% price increase in three years) might suggest to some of the folks who can afford to make those preservation decisions is that it doesn't matter, the market doesn't have that big an impact on our cultural legacy, which you indeed seem to believe. Except, that I know galleries that admit they are actively seeking more abstract painters at the moment...not because they believe they need to round out their program, but rather and quite consciously because it pays the bills. That is related in part to a shift in how much more art is sold at fairs, how little time everyone has at fairs, and how quickly decisions about buying abstract paintings seem to happen in particular compared with other types of art.
In short, this fad may indeed pass, but in the now 20 years I've been involved in the art market, I've never felt so many decisions (by collectors and dealers, and I'm beginning to fear by artists as well) were being made so cynically. That isn't to suggest some of the abstraction out there isn't indeed the very best art of this time You may believe it's the only good art out there, but consider two quotes from that article that suggest it's not (only) my preference for pluralism that prompted this post...that indeed we're looking at something new and alarming here:
“There’s a tremendous amount of speculation in the market right now, particularly for emerging artists,” said Todd Levin, director of the New York-based Levin Art Group, who has advised collectors for more than 25 years. “It is more ferocious than it’s ever been.” [emphasis mine]
“If people think they can make money, they’ll sit down and read about the art."
This all comes back to your post about collectors. Many of the people with lots of money to put into art are not truly interested in collecting or supporting the work or the artists rather they are interested with the investment potetnial present in the work. They have the money, so it's their call, but whats sad is that these types of individuals are allowed to muck up the entire system for everyone. I think there needs to be a blacklist where certain individuals are kept from purchasing work simply becasue their intentions are so backwards with regard to what art should be about. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to stand up against the money. Abstract painting is definitely undergoing a Renaissance and some really great things are happening within the medium, but it is also becoming the victim of these market trends becasue painting is as a whole is a very traditional medium and it has a well established history with the collectors and teh market. It also seems like teh hippest new approaches to abstraction from the youngest practioners seem to be getting the most attention, so its an arms race for novel abstract amusements.
My two cents: I did notice a lot of abstract paintings in Miami last December and my thought then was that abstract work often is very eye catching. So in an environment such as an art fair, where each gallery is competing for "eyes" this makes sense to deploy the eye-candiest stuff. I don't mean this as an affront, i happen to love eye candy!
But as far as the flipping, maybe that is a natural extension of the fast-paced nature of art fair collecting. Correct me if Im wrong, I am making an educated guess that, for the most part, purchasing at art fairs is much more spontaneous than in the past when collectors went to galleries and spent time getting to know the artists and becoming educated about the program?
It was enormously cynical when Christopher Wool came to auction at Christie's at the same time as his Guggenheim retrospective. It was beyond cynical when all Gagosian locations worldwide exhibited Hirst spot paintings simultaneously. But now abstraction is getting flipped (at comparatively drwarfish price points, percentages aside) and our cultural legacy is in jeopardy? Where was the speculation about what makes conceptual art so prone to that kind of market-driven philistinism?
Your post is salted with so much sarcasm that it's difficult to read the qualifications as anything but begrudged concessions to fair argument. If you've explained yourself further at Facebook I won't ask you to repeat yourself, but from the above it looks like you don't want this new abstract work to succeed. Which is fine if that's how you feel, but if so you might as well stop saying that you prefer pluralism.
from the above it looks like you don't want this new abstract work to succeed. Which is fine if that's how you feel, but if so you might as well stop saying that you prefer pluralism.
How one can possibly conclude that from "I certainly have no desire to impugn any artists making abstract paintings or collectors who truly love them. If you love making or buying abstract paintings, please, please continue" leaves me entirely confused. Moreover, how one can possibly conclude that knowing the two previous exhibitions to the one we have up now were solo exhibitions of new abstraction, by artists I love and very much want to succeed...so much that I put my money where my mouth is there...is utterly baffling.
This isn't you most well-considered analysis in my opinion.
Oh, one can't possibly conclude it from that. One can possibly conclude it from
Again, perhaps we're truly just seeing a Golden Age of abstract painting, and the market is indeed working to preserve the very best art of our time.
I'm kidding. (Really, just had to throw that in there to get it out of my system.)
And then possibly wonder if the qualifications leading up to that are begrudged. I presume you never said anything like that to your abstract artists, but were talking about the ones getting flipped.
But I'll take you at your word, and instead we'll look at those numbers for Murillo. 24 pieces going for $4.2M averages to $200K each. A price multiplication of 56 times is impressive but obviously doesn't mean that the next stop for his $401K work is somewhere north of $20M. Rather, it just went from my segment of the market to Ghebaly's.
Whereas the aforementioned Wool really did sell for $26M. Jerry Saltz lamented what was happening to our cultural legacy: "...auctions are altars to the disconnect between the inner life of art and outer life of consumption, places where artists are cut off from their art. Auctions have nothing to do with quality. At auctions, new values are assigned; desire is fetishized. Consumption becomes a sort of sacrament, art plays the role of sacrificial lamb and the Ponzi scheme that surrounds it all rolls on." Et cetera; you know how he gets.
If the average Murillo sells for $200K now, then the Wool just sold for 132 Murillos. Don't even get me started on Hirst dots or all the other examples I could cite. I ask again, what is it about conceptual art that lends itself to this kind of cynical market activity?
You took an admittedly silly bit of parallelism, clearly thrown in for rhetorical effect and qualified all to hell elsewhere, and presumed that meant I "don't want this new abstract work to succeed"???
And you think I'm bringing a pre-existing begrudgement to this conversation?
As for your turn on the central question (thank you for un-hijacking the thread), "what is it about conceptual art that lends itself to this kind of cynical market activity?": your take on your two examples (Hirst and Wool) doesn't address:
1) the report's finding that "Abstract paintings tend to be the most popular among speculators"
2) Todd Levin's conclusion that "[Speculation] is more ferocious than it’s ever been.”
3) Wool and Hirst (both of whom have been making and selling art since before Murillo was born) took a fair bit longer to see such appreciation in their own work, during which time they had many, many more exhibitions and the public had much, much more time to contemplate their work, making such comparisons less useful. Why not compare apples to apples here?
4) the fact that "contemplation" seems to be less of a concern at all to today's buyers (as epitomized by the quote from the report "If people think they can make money, they’ll sit down and read about the art.” )
5) how your use of numbers here is slanted: if you're taking an "average" of Murillo's prices to come up with a unit price for comparison with Wool's prices, you need to take an average of Wool's prices too. Your comparison is considerably less compelling if you use actually parallel data points (i.e., Murillo's average compared to Wool's average, versus Murillo's record compared with Wool's record)
6) as I've noted repeatedly, how this trend is impacting what's being taken to art fairs, where more and more of the sales are happening than ever before.
But now it's my turn to ask you a question (now that your campaign to build contempt for conceptualism has been duly noted).
Why do you think abstract painting is so popular among speculators? That is, after all, the actual question behind this post.
Maybe the popularity of abstract painting is a coincidence It's popular because it's there. People see it sell and take it to fairs. At this point we could all be selling popcorn balls and the questions would be the same..why? I think the question is whether this market will survive as the Fed dials back quantitative easing and interest rates rise making other less speculative investments more attractive. I think we have to separate the art and speculation because eventually we're all going to be stuck with a lot of abstract paintings and far fewer collectors.
maybe it isn’t simply how easy it is to let go of an abstraction and buy one (facility of the flip), but how much of a commitment it is to engage with representational works- an object with an identity, whether embodied or projected.
Maybe thats why art history needs time to come to terms with which works should be 'treasured', rather the an immediate reaction. Commitment takes time, whether holding on or letting go.
Maybe the question is further fleshed out if we ask the corollary, why are representational works so imtimidating to acquire?
why are representational works so imtimidating to acquire?
Very interesting way to look at it. My sense of it is they're not as intimidating as the conversations so far might imply. As I noted in the post, other type of art is indeed selling. It's simply not, as a genre, being flipped and traded as ferociously as abstract paintings seem to be.
There is likely nothing about abstract art that makes it so popular among this group of speculators. It's just the morsel currently moving through the winding digestive tract of this segment of the speculative art market, with predictable results at the end. That the equivalent question about conceptual artworks hasn't been raised when the next tier of speculators moves them at ten to two hundred times these price points is, to put it gently, suspicious.
You likely say that the latter is connoisseurship and collection, not speculation. I reply that all art market activity above the four-digit level is engineered in the same way, as far as I can tell. It has nothing to do with the quality or qualities of the work in question and everything to do with whom you can get to advocate for you. I don't know about the other artists mentioned, but Murillo has the Rubells gunning for him. My cat could be passed off as a major emerging artist if the RFC gave her a residency and produced a monograph for her. These are the people who put Hernan Bas in the Brooklyn Museum to coincide with his show at Lehman Maupin, along with who knows what other put-up jobs since then.
My criticism is that this is seen as a stylistic concern when abstraction is involved, and a market concern otherwise.
That the equivalent question about conceptual artworks hasn't been raised when the next tier of speculators moves them at ten to two hundred times these price points is, to put it gently, suspicious.
It's like you're not even reading the other things I'm writing here about why it seems different how. You're certainly not addressing them. Again!:
1) speculators are now flipping the work more quickly than ever before and the vast majority of it is abstract painting
2) curators are making a point of how derivative so much of what they're seeing in this genre strikes them
3) some art fairs are becoming little more than surveys of contemporary abstraction, which when combined with how much more sales are happening at the fairs than ever before also becomes something different entirely.
You likely say that the latter is connoisseurship and collection, not speculation.
You likely would starve as a mind-reader.
I have never defended the work or speculation of either of the artists you cite, but then I don't see their work as falling into the same general stylistic genre either, so I have never connected them in a way to think to question their concurrent market favor.
I'm questioning a shift in the market that seems to favor one specific genre of one medium for reasons that are defined by the statement: "If people think they can make money, they’ll sit down and read about the art.”
You, on the other hand, are not addressing why I insist it's different (i.e., it's NOT a stylistic concern, it's a question about why one stylistic concern seems so prone to become the vehicle for this new intensity in market manipulation when other concerns are not seemingly as attractive for it).
Perhaps it is simply coincidence, which would be a perfectly fine answer to my question. But when the result of these manipulations is to train the new generation of art patrons to only read about art when they think they can make money off it, to train dealers that what they need to take to art fair (so they can sustain their business) is this one genre of art; and to potentially train artists out there that the most surefire way to earn a living as an artist is to make abstract paintings; our collective legacy does indeed seem in jeopardy.
what are chances a handful of modestly-wealthy "flippers" are colluding (flipping among each other) to jack prices up, thereby enticing the bigger players to come in and establish the BIG BIG prices? That's pretty much what happened in the Boston real estate market in the
so-called "Massachusetts Miracle". . .
Could it have to do with the unreasonable apple?
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
Okay then.
1. I don't know if you're referencing something else but the Kazakina piece says that "Abstract paintings tend to be the most popular among speculators." According to whom and by what metrics isn't clear, but in any case she is not saying that "the vast majority of it is abstract painting." In fact, I count fifteen living artists mentioned in that article and the abstract painters are Murillo, Smith, Ostrowski, Vaerslev, Lund, Rosa, Sullivan, and Reyle, the last of which was cited as someone who was "chewed up and spat out" in the last round of speculation. So the "vast majority" is half? If half of the artists were involved in conceptual practices (which may actually be the case!) would it be time to wonder why conceptualism lends itself to these high flipping volumes and what we should do to protect our cultural legacy?
2. I'm not going to speculate on the judgment of unnamed curators on unnamed artists, especially in the context of the Kazakina article. What makes Alex Israel such a huge advance over Paul Ruscha or Michael Craig-Martin? What distinguishes Petra Cortright and Parker Ito from each other? All I can say is that these guys - and I do mean "guys" - are exploring some very well-traveled territory. It may be that, or like one critic that comes to mind, they look at abstract painting as if it were mere exhaust wafting out of the machine of capitalism. I really don't know.
3. I wrote about four fairs last December (1, (2, (3 & 4) and this does not jibe with my experience of them. I found plenty of good contemporary abstraction but I found plenty of everything.
I guess I don't understand why the increase in flipping (about 175% if I'm doing the math in my head right) makes it qualitatively different such that it's time to critique the practice that may be driving half of it. To me the preponderance that stands out in that article isn't the 50% of abstract painters, but the 95% of males, some significant fraction of whom are under 35, which really does make you wonder about the reckoning of our cultural legacy. All I can say is that this slice of market activity, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't mean anything because no segment of market activity means anything, which is why I keep bringing up the blue chip trades that seem like they would merit a lot more speculation than the relatively small potatoes discussed here. If I were more biased I'd say that there is a sudden explosion of taste, but that didn't happen. The same kind of people are buying a different kind of art for the same wrong reasons in greater-than-ever quantities.
So the "vast majority" is half?
Not having a good day with math, I see. That's OK.
I count 13 living artists, including Hirst, Reyle and Weischer, who if you take out of the list (because they're used as reference points, not examples of the trend) leaves 10 living artists. Seven (7) of those 10 are known for abstract paintings. It's a clear majority...although I'll admit that "vast" is a subjective term...for me, 7 of 10 counts as "vast."
But you're right. The metrics by which the arts reporter for Bloomberg, who spends every working day reporting on and researching such matters, was not specified. So she's probably just pulled that statement out of thin air.
I'm not going to speculate on the judgment of unnamed curators on unnamed artists...
Didn't ask you to. Just asked you to acknowledge that since I have had those conversations this seems relevant in determining that something has shifted and it's worth noting. Moreover, it explains why, independent of my position on pluralism, I find this alarming and makes your suspicions seem so insulting. (The only way this could not matter is if I were lying about its significance.)
I wrote about four fairs last December (1, (2, (3 & 4) and this does not jibe with my experience of them.
We had different experiences then. I've been in Miami every year for the past 12, and the change is quite noticeable to me. Again, YMMV.
I guess I don't understand why the increase in flipping (about 175% if I'm doing the math in my head right) makes it qualitatively different such that it's time to critique the practice that may be driving half of it.
There is a question about, not a critique of, the genre (and given that some if not all the artists here have varied practices, nothing about "practice" is really being discussed here at all).
You really should try taking me at my word when I add "sincerely" into a post. I know I lean snarky at times. But when I write something such as "I'm simply, and quite sincerely, trying to figure out why the emerging end of the contemporary art market has such a hard-on for them over other types of work" it's easier to assume that that's exactly what I mean than to project all manner of what in terms of how we program our gallery would be absurd positions onto my true feelings here.
Interestingly, in a Painters Table blog interview last month with Paul Behnke about the exhibit "Eight Painters" he curated at Kathryn Fine Art in NYC(http://painters-table.com/blog/eight-painters-kathryn-markel-gallery)), he says: "Yes, painting isn’t for everyone. I see painting, today, as a radical act. And despite what we see, in our corner of the art world in Bushwick at the moment, the type of visual experience that abstract painting provides seems to be less in demand. "
An example once again, that the commercial end of the teeny tiny upper percent of mega buyers...truly doesn't reflect the vast world of art, gallery and artists...a microcosm of the increasing divide economically in this and other countries?
I tend to agree with what Grace said earlier..."which at a superficial viewing can be effortlessly absorbed being obviously not offensive; often colorful and "easy to live with"- an expression that I never understood. " Persons buying to "flip" need bang for the buck, work that doesn't require too much of an emotional or intellectual commitment or challenge to the viewer so that the work can "fit" within a wide array of collections...
As far as I can tell my math is fine. (a) denotes an abstract painter.
1. Kour Pour
2. Oscar Murillo (a)
3. Lucien Smith (a)
4. Eddie Peake
5. David Ostrowski (a)
6. Parker Ito
7. Fredrik Vaerslev (a)
8. Israel Lund (a)
9. Damien Hirst
10. Alex Israel
11. Petra Cortright
12. Christian Rosa (a)
13. Ryan Sullivan (a)
14. Anselm Reyle (a)
15. Matthias Weischer
Leave the list as is and it's 8/15. Take out Weischer, Reyle, and Hirst like you suggest and it's 7/12. Leave the list as is and count the abstract painters enjoying the market vogue and it's 7/15.
I already said I would take you at your word back at 08:31, and while I'm not sure what you mean by "project all manner of what in terms of how we program our gallery," I did not and would not comment on your gallery program. Myself, I was in Miami for nine out of the last twelve fair seasons and I say with confidence that our cultural legacy survived the Age of Everybody Selling Botero, the Age of Everybody Is Making Giant Photographs, the Age of Urs Fischer's Empty Pack of Cigarettes Getting Dragged Around Selling for $600,000, and it will survive the Age of Flipped Abstractions too. I promise.
I'm a bit late into the conversation, and I didn't get to read all the comments yet (read some) so probably this was mentioned already, but I think, Edward, that you are reading more into it than there is. It's a rising market, and is seen as a fad, therefore many are rushing to make a quick buck, it has nothing to do with the art itself. Especially if it's seen as derivative. It's just popular and the flippers are in it for the money, not much else. True art lives separately from the market, independent of it. At times they clash, but as you know, only time will recognize it for what it is, not the contemporary market value.
Personally, I love abstract art, but I think many people can't really tell what is good abstract and what isn't . I don't know if I can tell either, but I know what I like and what I don't. And maybe that's what's important, and that's what makes it popular - being something people can relate to on a personal level.
I'm a bit late into the conversation, and I didn't get to read all the comments yet (read some) so probably this was mentioned already, but I think, Edward, that you are reading more into it than there is. It's a rising market, and is seen as a fad, therefore many are rushing to make a quick buck, it has nothing to do with the art itself. Especially if it's seen as derivative. It's just popular and the flippers are in it for the money, not much else. True art lives separately from the market, independent of it. At times they clash, but as you know, only time will recognize it for what it is, not the contemporary market value.
Personally, I love abstract art, but I think many people can't really tell what is good abstract and what isn't . I don't know if I can tell either, but I know what I like and what I don't. And maybe that's what's important, and that's what makes it popular - being something people can relate to on a personal level.
but I think, Edward, that you are reading more into it than there is
Always a possibility.
The thing is, I've been watching this trend for quite some time (I didn't just agree with a news article and decide to write about it), so while I hope you and Franklin are right, I'd rather raise awareness of what I sense and be wrong than be silent and have Franklin's promise not come true.
Oscar Murillo is a Great folk artist.
Abstract is easy That's why people like it. Its like a 2.30 minute song with a great hook.
we all live in a yellow submarine yellow submarine
Elaine Wynn, billionaire co-founder of the Wynn Casino bought the Bacon triptych. Wynn stock price 2009 was $14.50 today $223.00.
Janet Yellen and President Obama own the Art Market.
I've thrown away my toys,
Even my drums and trains,
I want to make some noise,
with real live airplanes.
Some day I'm going to fly,
I'll be a pilot to,
and when I do,
how would you,
like to be my crew?
On the good ship
lollipop
its a sweet trip
to the candy shop
where bon-bon's play,
on the sunny beach
of peppermint bay
Lemonade stands,
everywhere
crackerjack bands,
fill the air,
and there you are,
happy landings on a chocolate bar.
See the sugar bowl
do a tootsie roll
in a big bad devils food cake,
if you eat too much,
oh, oh,
you'll awake,
with a tummy ache.
On the good ship
lollipop
its a nice trip,
in to bed you hop,
and dream away,
on the good ship
lollipop
Hypothesis: An abstract painting will not reproach the rich person who looks at it. A representational painting, if it has any social criticism in it at all might cause a pang, or a twinge, or even a pause. One crazy pleasure of the intoxicating money-whirl art bubble, or any bubble, is the frictionless brainless high of extravagant crazy zipless (to quote E. Jong) experience ... Content/representation could get in the way.
Just a question: do any gallerists ever deny a purchase to a particular buyer because they feel their intentions are too crass, that they don't really appreciate the artistic value of the piece they want to buy and are only doing it for flipping potential? I'm thinking of a kind of velvet rope a buyer needs to pass before being allowed to own a work of art....
@ Julie V. ---
Yes, of course they do, if they can afford that luxury. And when work is in demand and priced high, people most certainly get excluded.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home