Art sales soar despite credit crunch

by Thomas

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, however, it may be the case that people are investing in art because its value is less likely to tank than stocks like GE (12% drop over a week ago) and Yahoo! (with a looming buyout). Is it really the case that spending £580,000 on Hirst's A Beautiful Thing is a good investment? With the art market expanding as it is, it most necessarily is. That's what art's all about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/22/nart122.xml

On the Role of Art Critics and Art Historians

The role of these individuals I find to complicated. On one hand, I see "doers," that is artists, as better guides than art critics. Frequently, an art critic uses words that seem inadequate, too adequate, or just simply wrong. Their arguments can be equally perplexing and mysterious. They do have the ability to "make or break a career" (my skin crawls at that (1) actually happening (2) actually having to be a concern), and though they have a great knowledge of artists, oftentimes they are foreign to the methods of labor involved (many exceptions of course! Some actually have an art making background!). Their role seems to ride completely on an overinflated art market. Once more, Duchamp and Warhol--you know, artists--appear as the prime contributers to art theory, as opposed to art critics. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Yet at the same time, where would we be without them? Sometimes they analyze insightfully and as a result give back to an art community. It allows art to be judged (a tricky endeavor) academically. Being raised by academics, I do not reject or fear the idea of academia and art interacting, so I find this to be most beneficial.

The relationship between art historians and art critics will reveal itself more fully with time, and I unfortunately cannot fully describe this interaction. Initially it appears art historians perpetuate what art critics say, but this is not the case as seen with Joseph Beuys, art from Byzantium, Pollock, David Salle and others.

Yet the critic (and historian somewhat) act as mediators between artist (or art rather) and viewer/participant. Why the mediator? In a discussion led by Linda Weintraub, who wrote In The Making (starring many artists including Takashi Murakami no less), she claimed to take this stance because of "disgruntled watchers in a gallery" (3/4/2007).

Now I would like to fight in Linda's behalf before (what will seem like me) attacking her. She writes very consciously of artists and how they want to be represented. She always sends her writing to the artists she is covering. She wants their validation--that indeed, the presentation of them (the artists) is appropriate. Quite admirable and she generally writes to artists as opposed to art historians, art critics or art collectors. An amazon review attacks her because of her weak critical analysis of the work. Yet, I find such "plain" texts a relief when opinions are so easy to come by. It allows the ready to reject or accept or whatever the work. I appreciate such efforts and find them quintessential to the art book market: let people decide for themselves.

However, she ignores a crucial fact with her "disgruntled watchers in a gallery." That crucial fact is that they are in a gallery--which is the supposedly neutral territory (thank you Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com) which is in fact not neutral and is completely "artificial" (for lack of a better word). In short, the gallery is already a mediator. That could be the problem. If we were to see the art piece in a public space or in the artist's studio (in my opinion, the prime location to look at the work, perhaps the only place to look at the work properly). So an art critic then is the mediator that works inside the mediator of the gallery to relay information from the art/ist to the viewer/participant.

To end on a personal statement, when I work I acknowledge the realm or situation in which my art is displayed or is meant to be displayed (inside the gallery--the white cube). I work from that position of the white cube/the gallery/the space the piece will exist in. I see it as the only way to take the whole picture into account. In short, what I mean to say is that some work is not only intended for display in a gallery but takes the gallery as an idea, as a canvas into consideration in order to make it a valid, true, honest way to view the work. This would be less true of an outsider artist, whose work was made (approximately) without the consideration of the gallery/museum/the white box. To see that work in the atmosphere of a gallery is, to me, not to see the work much at all. That itself is a huge hurtle. The gallery is just one of many frameworks from which we see art (or in other words, context is important in any given situation).

"How is it feminist? Because a woman made it"

Those are words from an art history professor I had a year ago talking about the feminist work of Sherrie Levine.

Duchamp's Fountain casted in Bronze by Sherrie Levine
I cannot say that I am a huge fan of Sherrie Levine's work, but that isn't so important so much as another common, unfounded art historical insofacto comment, which when it is observed makes little if any sense as a Universal.
A woman taking any sort of position is in a patriarchy is not in and of itself feminist. In this particular example with the artist Sherrie Levine, making an object in a male dominated art world is not inherently feminist. Certainly we could argue that the piece is feminist--in fact evidence supports this. But that does not mean it a woman making it automatically makes it feminist in any shape way or form, or at the very least, I don't find its position to be so easily and quickly understood as feminist.
Let's put the art world aside and instead enter the political sphere. If we see a woman protesting the new restrictions on abortion outside of the White House, we would probably think (correctly) that she is a feminist. For sake of argument, the protests result in the new restrictions being removed. The day after the new restrictions have been removed, we see still people protesting! But instead of signs demanding restrictions being removed, the signs dictate that abortion should be completely illegal! The majority of them are women, and they are taking a stance in a patriarchy. Does that make them feminists?

I hate to make, "most people would say" statements, but here we go: most people I believe would not consider these women feminists, eventhough they are standing up for a cause they believe in in a patriarchy. Perhaps some of the individuals from the first protest (pro-choice folk), reacting against the new restrictions, respond that the second protesters (pro-life) are simply acting within the boundaries of what it is to be a woman in a patriarchy. One might quickly dismiss this only because it assumes that one's position on abortion determines whether or not one acts within or outside of a "woman's role." The arguements continue on.

But it does not matter. Already, a distinction has been made between the act of taking a stance and the content of a stance, simply by creating the duality of "woman against patriarchy" vs. "woman unknowingly conforming to patriarchy." To base who fits in what category solely upon a single factor seems ridiculous, therefore the issue is not "against patriarchy" vs "conforming to patriarchy," so much as what these individuals are saying. Being an (politically, artistically, etc) active woman, does not necessitate a feminist stance.

60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

Two of many Sol LeWitt's incomplete Cubes

Bruce Nauman's Run from Fear Fun from Rear in neon
60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments
The work from the 60s and 70s is, in general, of great importance to what I make and do, and I think about it frequently. And as I always do, I think about the public's reaction to these sorts of pieces, although Bruce Nauman says repeatedly that he makes art for the few--not the elite--but that his art is something he'd want to show a friend, for example. Though Nauman is quite confident, I am not and I am insecure about the public eye, what they think (MAKE ME THINK). I want to preface by saying my thoughts on this matter are founded upon the assumption that the "general public" (whatever that means) sees these pieces as tasteless or simply as not being art (which actually is a very astute observation, if people don't just shut down when looking at something "modern" or contemporary and find it to be a little odd--for sake of simplicity right now, I am going to ignore this and bring this up in an article about Duchamp sometime later. This issue is not my primary concern).

I believe that the work seen above ought to be seen differently than other forms of art--I think it ought to be judged by different criteria. The work is not about aesthetics. What I mean when I say this is that there is no one aesthetic that determines or creates the piece. Instead it other systems, which an artist uses to execute an idea or action (or in this case, which someone else executes... see my first brief article "end of the beginning"). It's literally experimentation; it's experimental art. In the case of Sol LeWitt, the system is obvious when you see a great amount of his work. With the open, incomplete cubes, I believe that Sol LeWitt made every combination of an open cube available. If I am incorrect, he still 'made' many incomplete cubes. He experimented within a specific framework and saw the results of following that system.

Perhaps the viewer feels cheated, believes that the all the cubes are complete worthless based on the absence of an aesthetic system which determines the appearance of the piece (again, this is not to say there is not an aesthetic to the piece or that appearances are not important to the artist). To reiterate, I believe that this individual looks at the work from a slightly flawed perspective. To say that experimental art is bad is like saying a scientific experiment is bad. Or even more bazaar, to choose say you prefer one cube over another. That would be like asking, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?"

This question, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?," appears odd to us. I am arguing that odd reaction is the same regarding experimental art. At this point I would like to clarify a couple of things. Of course, is that you can prefer anything over anything else and judge biasedly. For example, you could prefer the scientific experiment that has a gray rat because you like gray rats. In this sense, no reaction is bazaar. You feel and think what you feel and think. At the same time though, this gives no consideration to anything except your own opinion, which is what you could say I am attacking: no consideration.

So if you 'cannot' judge based on an aesthetic system, what system do you judge it by? Well, an experimental system. That is what is important, the experiment. In short, if you don't see it this way, you are seeing it incorrectly.

Questioning Perceptions...

But can this really be a true statement? Can I or anyone else say that your perspective is wrong? Could I or someone else say that a person is visually illiterate? This is confusing for me. I personally believe that, yes, I can say that people see things incorrectly and that a piece does have an inherent logic.


But then i turn around and say, but art is not just what is in the head of the maker but also in the eyes of the viewer (though Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com , has made a very good point to me that ultimately the artist, not the audience, is the only reason for art being made--I agree, but again I am more insecure and concerned about public opinion). Though I firmly believe one can see things incorrectly, I have no proof or valid foundation. In fact, I can only say that the opposing argument, that art is primarily if not completely interpreted by the viewer, has more evidence. This entire conversation inevitably addresses the question, "what is art?," and the common response, "these complexities of what art is and how art is seen makes it art."


I am skeptical of this. Challenging "what is art" is not a valid way to make art. Philosophers and theologians have challenged art making, but that doesn't make their argumentation or writings art to the general public or even the art work, does it? Obviously not.

One philosopher, Arthur Danto, to tackle the question, "what is art?," defined art as whatever the art world accepts as art. But what if an object was once considered art, but is no longer? What of Byzantium? Those "artists" were considered craftsmen! Who are we to retroactively claim these people as artists when their own contemporaries did not? On the other hand, does it matter if it is the same creative spark, which is shared across cultures? Is a child's or a scientist's drawing not art because it isn't accepted into the cannon?

In short, I question questions and doubt doubts. And furthermore, I don't know.

In His Infinite Wisdom

By Thomas

Usually we judge artwork by beauty (and whatever you define that to be), inherent message (the inside story, if you will), and how it connects to the audience. Some artists believe their work can also be found worthwhile without any of these qualities. Specifically, even if an art piece is untoward or appallingly unnecessary, it can have worth if it provokes people, or generates some kind of controversy in subsequent conversations. Here we have In His Infinite Wisdom. Damien Hirst achieves <>shock>< in his audience with a gestational anomaly and which he credits to god (or God or. ..). Brilliant. So, is this supposed to suggest an atheist point of view or are we actually blaming an extra leg on a calf on someone other than hormone-pumped heifers? Its unoriginal, midordinary and bland. OMG, there are freaky, sad and bad things in the world? How incredible.

ART and AIDS

By Thomas

U2’s Bono kicked off the AIDS charity auction—which topped $38.7 million—last night with a rendition of “All You Need is Love.” A piece by the same name by Damien Hirst—A large plastic heart with dead butterflies stuck to it—sold for $2.2 million to a telephone bidder. Damien Hirst’s priciest work garnered $6.2 million “before fees,” according to Bloomberg.com. Now, Sotheby’s is undoubtedly a well-meaning auction house, but what are the “fees,” involved here? If this is a charity for AIDS victims in Africa, then why are fees involved? I’m sure their paltry 10% commission of the hammer price is appreciated by the dying Africans.

Charity auctions carry a purely positive connotation. Who would not want to be involved in a charity auction, and frankly, why would one not want to donate to such a thing. Naturally, if your auction house is Sotheby’s and this is an extremely well-publicized auction, you will see several celebrities there. Not only will Bono perform a Beatle’s tune, but actor Dennis Hopper, former tennis star John McEnroe, real estate mogul Aby Rosen and model Christy Turlington all show up. Following the auction there’s an after-party including KaiKai KiKi LLC CEO Takashi Murakami, entrepreneur Martha Stewart, models Helena Christensen and Liya Kebede, R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, newscaster Brian Williams and actress Ziyi Zhang. Not only did Christy Turlington buy Francesco Clemente's ``Red Flower on Scorched Earth'' for $155,000, more than double the valuation of $70,000!!, but she happened to write a paper on Damien Hirst in college! Artists involved were some of the priciest in the business. Not only was Hirst well-represented, but Murakami’s “Red Flower Ball (3-D)” sold for $1.5 million, U.K. sculptor Antony Gormley’s piece went for $250,000 and Andreas Gursky “Pyongyang IV,” a photograph of a Korean festival sold for $1.4 million.

Art dealers bought up most of the pricier pieces and phone buyers bought up most of the rest. Hirst’s piece, “Where There’s a Will There’s a Way,” brought in more than a sixth of the proceeds. It was purchased by London’s White Cube Gallery, one of Hirst’s own dealers. Of course art adviser Thea Westreich stated that celebrity events can’t serve as a proxy for the health of the art market, “It's a sexy auction for Valentine's Day.” This may indicate that Damien Hirst and other artists don’t commonly fetch this extreme in prices. However, if dealers and mysterious “phone bidders,” bought up most of the pieces, what are we to expect, that these pieces were not worth what they were sold for? This would undoubtedly put the dealers out of business, the mysterious phone bidders in a position to relinquish their phones. Such an auction is brilliant for these artists. Not only is their work put out there as their own, when often such pieces are constructed by the “Hirst Studio,” or “Murakami[[ and others ]],” but receiving this kind of publicity and these kind of over-the-top prices on their works only makes their snob appeal/recognition/worth go up. The contention is not that art at this level is a Giffen good (goods that are in higher demand at higher prices). Instead, demand among the rich is heavily linked to recognition. High Art's worth so often is judged by author rather than by, well, worth. Why would an artist of Hirst’s caliber not want to hire his studio workers a few more hours to make such a piece for auction when it can only increase his popularity and appeal. Even better, "I'm a good person, I donate to charity, World!"

Celebrities get tremendous props simply for attending such events. If they, like Christy Turlington, actually come away with a piece, it makes big news. Not just among the higher-up community, but among the public. Martha Stewart looks much better than she did yesterday, simply because she is mentioned in articles discussing the (Red) Auction at Sotheby’s. Additionally, these people are buying art. Valuations were estimated to be much lower than the auction brought in, however, these artists commonly sell pieces for such prices. What better pairing for your 42^nd street townhouse apartment and your image than a Hirst cabinet with antiretroviral drugs stuck inside and an “I contributed to charity,” medal?

In a purely reasonable sense, altruism does not exist. Every individual acts on his or her preferences and maximizes utility according to those preferences. An unselfish act is just as selfish as a selfish one from a purely personal perspective. In other words, celebrities and top artists in the business have motivations for submitting to a charitable auction as I have mentioned, but also have internal motivations which reward them. Maybe they are doing good for horribly sick people in Africa. Maybe AIDS workers will get it through their heads that condom distribution doesn’t work and that more creative ways to prevent the almost inevitable spread of AIDS are necessary. Ultimately, events like this, which focus on a dire problem (AIDS in Africa), but which ignore such things as genocide in Darfur, may serve the wealthy artists and celebrities involved more than those in Africa.

Thanks go to Linda Sandler and Katya Kazakina.

Damien Hirst on 9/11

Hirst on 9/11
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.gossip.celebrities/browse_thread/thread/2aea1fb054cd3c0f/9f2810671ae188f8?hl=en&lnk=st&q=damien+hirst
The 1999 Sensation Exhibit mentioned in the above article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation_exhibition
Hirst on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst
Hirst on art:

Hirst sees the real creative act as being the conception, not the execution, and that, as the progenitor of the idea, he is therefore the artist:

“

Art goes on in your head," he says. "If you said something interesting, that might be a title for a work of art and I'd write it down. Art comes from everywhere. It's your response to your surroundings. There are on-going ideas I've been working out for years, like how to make a rainbow in a gallery. I've always got a massive list of titles, of ideas for shows, and of works without titles.

on Appropriation:

ppropriation

In 2000, Hirst was sued for breach of copyright over his sculpture, Hymn, which was a 20 foot, six ton, enlargement of his son Connor's 14" Young Scientist Anatomy Set, designed by Norman Emms, 10,000 of which are sold a year by Hull-based toy manufacturer Humbrol for £14.99 each. Hirst paid an undisclosed sum to two charities, Children Nationwide and the Toy Trust in an out-of-court settlement. The charitable donation was less than Emms had hoped for.^[9]

In 2006, a graphic artist, Robert Dixon, stated Hirst's print Valium had "unmistakable similarities" to one of his own designs. Hirst's manager contested this by explaining the origin of Hirst's piece was from a book The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry (1991)—not realising this was where Dixon's design had been published.^[25]

Spiritus Callidus #2 by John Lekay, 1993, crystal skull

In 2007, artist John LeKay said he was a friend of Damien Hirst 1992–1994 and had given him a "marked-up duplicate copy" of a Carolina Biological Supply Company catalogue, adding "You have no idea how much he got from this catalogue. The Cow Divided is on page 647 – it is a model of a cow divided down the centre, like his piece." This refers to Hirst’s work Mother and Child, Divided—a cow and calf cut in half and placed in formaldehyde.^[25] LeKay also claimed Hirst had copied the idea of For the Love of God from LeKay's crystal skulls made in 1993, and said, "I would like Damien to acknowledge that 'John really did inspire the skull and influenced my work a lot.'"^[25]

those who applaud him:
"There is no comparison between him and me; he developed a whole new way of making art and he's clearly in a league of his own. It would be like making comparisons with Warhol."^[27] Despite Hirst's insults to him, Saatchi remains a staunch supporter, labelling Hirst a genius^[26] and stating:

“

General art books dated 2105 will be as brutal about editing the late 20th century as they are about almost all other centuries. Every artist other than Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol, Donald Judd and Damien Hirst will be a footnote.[28]

”

****I would quickly to take note that Saatchi left out Duchamp. Also, in my readings I have not come across Pollock as frequently as perhaps the general public would like****

Hirst's restaurant and pharmacy:

Hirst's best known restaurant involvement was Pharmacy, located in Notting Hill, London, which closed in September 2003. Although one of the owners, Hirst had only leased his art work to the restaurant, so he was able to retrieve and sell it at a Sotheby's auction, earning over £11 million. Some of the work had been adapted, e.g. by signing it prior to the auction.^[34].

Hirst opened and currently helps to run a seafood restaurant, 11 The Quay, in the seaside town of Ilfracombe in the UK.

Those who aren't fond of Hirst:
The Stuckist art group was founded in 1999 with a specific anti-Britart agenda by Charles Thomson and Billy Childish;^[31] Hirst is one of their main targets. They wrote (referring to a Channel 4 programme on Hirst):

“

The fact that Hirst's work does mirror society is not its strength but its weakness - and the reason it is guaranteed to decline artistically (and financially) as current social modes become outmoded. What Hirst has insightfully observed of his spin-paintings in Life and Death and Damien Hirst is the only comment that needs to be made of his entire oeuvre: "They're bright and they're zany - but there's fuck all there at the end of the day."[30]

_____________________________________________________

I just wanted to post these little tid bits to get me thinking, to make me feel obliged to respond to them.