Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Art Market
For the last few years, the media have trumpeted contemporary art as the hottest new investment. At fairs, auction houses and galleries, an influx of new buyers--many of them from the world of finance--have entered the fray. Lifted by this tidal wave of new money, the number of thriving artists, galleries and consultants has rocketed upwards. Yet amid all this transformative change, one element has held stable: the art market's murky modus operandi. In my experience, people coming from the finance world into the art market tend to be shocked by the level of opacity and murkiness," says collector Greg Allen, a former financier who co-chairs MoMA's Junior Associates board. "Of course, there's a lot of hubris--these people made fortunes cracking the market's code, so they tend to think the opacity is someone else's problems. But the mechanisms are not in place to eliminate ethical lapses or price-gouging, and the new breed of collectors is definitely more likely to pursue legal options. And once things go to court, a lot of the opacity gets shaken out." The art trade is the last major unregulated market," points out Manhattan attorney Peter R. Stern, whose work frequently involves art-market cases. "And while it always involved large sums of money, there was never the level of trading and investing that we have now. I'm increasingly approached by collectors who have encountered problems." Stern represented collector Jean-Pierre Lehmann in his winning case against the Project Gallery, which captivated the art world by revealing precisely what prices and discounts Project Gallery Chief Christian Haye had offered various collectors and galleries on paintings by Julie Mehretu--information normally concealed by an art world omerta. --Time To Reform The Art Market? by Marc Spiegler for The Art Newspaper, 2006.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
A few years ago, at the Glass Art Society meeting (predominantly artists and students), I attended a lecture by a prominent glass artist, William Morris (www.wmorris.com). I’ve seen Billy’s work in galleries for upwards of $300,000 (Man Adorned series) and few pieces less than $20,000. In his lecture he recommended to the artists attending that as soon as their work begins selling that they hire a Business Manager to handle PR, sales, and all business aspects. He, like most artists, doesn’t have a public relations or business background. He told stories of how the business aspect of the artist life simply got in the way of his art making. It was distracting and frustrating. Of course, he cautioned, you must find someone who is trustworthy and you must work with your manager very closely to assure that you are not ripped off or misrepresented. But, he said, having such a person allowed him to go to the studio and approach his work without distraction—not having to worry about how much the piece he was making would sell for, which gallery or galleries he needed to create work for etc etc. If you look at his web site, you’ll see that he has a long list of galleries including his own, William Morris Studio. Dale Chihuly, on the other hand, directs you to his galleries to purchase his work (www.chihuly.com). Of course, we will be very lucky to become as successful as these two artists. But keep Billy’s advice in mind just in case… And, if you’re really lucky, your work will skyrocket in price before you are dead!
I feel like this last discussion of the art market was really important for me. I have been so clueless about all of this for so long it was nice to get a run through. Now, I had a question as to how as an artist are you aware of all that is going on after you have sold artwork in a gallery. Are you to keep tabs on who has your work and is it by "word of mouth" do you realize that your value as an artist is rising. what about copyrights??? do you have to have your work copyrights before you display work in a gallery??
The art market is foreign to me. Even with our discussion in class it seems to concrete my assumption that it's all a big business. Art seems to be more of a personal satisfaction, a gaining of knowledge through trial and error, and then you put it up for everyone to judge. These parts don't bother me. It's when it comes to the next step. Selling the piece personally gratifies me enough. I get kind of iffy feeling when i have to approach a person and ask them if my work is good enough to be put in there gallery. The real question is, will this sell in your gallery? It gives me the creeps, kind've like hollywood and it's grasp on the american economy. This vicious cylce of buy buy buy sell sell sell is what i was tryin to escape as an artist. As I type this I begin to see that maybe it's near impossible to get away from the cycle, and I've been forced in my existence in time to survive only by the means of this cycle. As I stated in class, I will get my name out there until i make a nice chunk of change and run at the top of my game. Just run away from all that nonsense that clouds my brain from creating and just farm. Grow some tomatoes or something and leave the art market behind, and begin my own art world...
The idea of the art market is a double edged sword. In order for artwork to be made public (which is a big deal, art is made to be seen) it is essential that there exist these inter-workings of art dealers, shows, collectors to do what they do. It of course gives us the public a chance to experience these wonderful things and for that chance I am grateful (although I know I do not take advantage of it nearly as much as I should). The other side of this double edged sword is that I feel that sometimes all of the politics can interfere with what an artist is trying to do. If an artist is unable to explore an area of his or her ability because they are afraid that a dealer or a collector will drop them (or in more severe cases they are afraid that the person will influence others in such a way that they will be cut off from the dealers, galleries, shows etc) it is a complete waste of talent and ideas. It is kind of sad that it seems that only the rich (or rich enough to not worry about making art for money) are free from the bonds of this system. Of course most artists do not go into art for money (that would be like buying a jumbo jet for the free peanuts) but it is sad to think that because of the intricate system of the art world most of the money made because of the art is never seen by the artist. Is it better to be the starving artist who is free to do anything, or go more mainstream to route and gain acceptance and the almighty dollar? I am not an art major and I have no intention of making art for money, which is kind of nice because I can make whatever I want without risk of losing anything, and I believe that “free art” (art without restrictions) will always be better than art that is made for someone else.
Popness, I heard and respect your argument. However, everything in life takes effort; even a farm (as simple as it may sound). The desire for authenticity doesn't preclude abandoning the world and its apparent noise. As Taoist master Chuang-Tzu once put it: "God is in the shit." La Lady: Art is not necessarily the same as a music CD. Have you heard of appropriation? On the other hand, "if people appropriate your work, that's a sign you're on your way" (a law of the market)...
I find the art market very interesting. There are so many aspects that anyone can pursue from the artist to the collector to the curator to the critic. Before becoming specifically a painting major, I had considered pursuing the field of art business and I still do. I find many people who criticize and are against the art market. I feel they should just get over themselves. If you take pride in your work why not show it. Why not let yourself be recognized for what you have created. I find it essential for all artists to know the function of the art market. I wish they had a course on the Art market or Art Business at UM that covered the different areas more in depth what we had covered in this lecture. I do not know if I am the only one, I know I would have taken that course. It is also amazing how much money goes into investing and buying art. When we think about it: (I know not necessarily personally for the artist but…) How did ART become such a money-making industry at the end of it all.
Ok, achasey, I don’t deny one can see the market as corrupt. But isn’t the market is a product of our human desires? Every time we engage in any kind of transaction, we’re in the market, whether buying, lending, bartering; a form of negotiation. Perhaps the question should be, are we corrupt?
I think its kind of daunting.You go to uni and they teach you how to make work and you expect to succeed if you happen to some day make good work. The idea of having to create art that will appeal to people and then playing into this game is tiring yet the only way to be successful. Like professor triffs comment on having a quirky/weird personality being useful as its what people expect of you as an artist. It seems unfair that one should have to play a part in the manner of Sartre's french waiter.
I don't think it's a question of everyone who decides to enter the market as a consumer or an artist being corrupt. In the end, any market is controlled by those with the most resources. Those individuals or companies end up setting up the industry guidelines and enforcing those rules. It just happens to look like the art industry is very lax with these rules, and that opaqueness begins from there.
The value of the artwork and the copyrighting issues are always a problem. When someone that's not a collector buys your work maybe they expect to sell it at a higher price to someone else. It might not be a bad thing completely because it actually does increase the value a bit but not all of the profit goes to the artist. Maybe you're expected to pay a small fine for someone to help you out in little ways like this. I'm still very clueless about all this, so I'm just guessing. I've heard that if you flip a picture or drawing backwards or alter it in a small way it no longer belong to the orginal artist and is free for the use of other people without having to deal with copyright issues. I'm not sure if I'm ok with that. You can look at an image that you did and see someone else selling what they altered of it in their name. Maybe when one makes a good piece they should always flip it so no one else does it.
I you take the time to create the work or to develop the idea then you should take pride in your work. An artist should make work to sell for him or her and not worry about whos going to buy it or if anyone will like it. If they care about the work they created they should have faith that the business will handle itself. I know personally if I don't like something I created I usually won't show anyone but when I create something that I love I wil show it to everyone I know.
Post a Comment