Comments on: The Spectacle of the Art Market Part 3 – artmarketblog.com http://www.artmarketblog.com/2009/12/15/the-spectacle-of-the-art-market-part-3-artmarketblog-com/ Art Market Analysis by Nic Forrest Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:54:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: artforprofits http://www.artmarketblog.com/2009/12/15/the-spectacle-of-the-art-market-part-3-artmarketblog-com/#comment-2248 artforprofits Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:40:09 +0000 http://artmarketblog.com/?p=2498#comment-2248 I certainly agree that not all scholars are correct or objective but they are certainly more objective than most art market professionals. Regardless of whether or not a scholar is objective or correct, there is a need for more art to be set in a museum context where the financial value is not the primary motivation. The true scholars and the public can decide whether or not the scholars and curators are right but first they need to be given the chance. I certainly agree that not all scholars are correct or objective but they are certainly more objective than most art market professionals. Regardless of whether or not a scholar is objective or correct, there is a need for more art to be set in a museum context where the financial value is not the primary motivation. The true scholars and the public can decide whether or not the scholars and curators are right but first they need to be given the chance.

]]> By: Lisa Hunter http://www.artmarketblog.com/2009/12/15/the-spectacle-of-the-art-market-part-3-artmarketblog-com/#comment-2247 Lisa Hunter Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:29:36 +0000 http://artmarketblog.com/?p=2498#comment-2247 Your argument presumes that "scholars" are 1) correct and 2) objective. Historically, a lot of innovative art has been shunned by established critics and scholars. (Take a look at who was elected to the prestigious French academy of fine arts 100 years ago It's the academic artists, not the Impressionists.) Today, even scholars aren't free of the marketplace. One art consultant remarked to me that she could tell, just by looking at a museum exhibit of contemporary art, which dealers the curator was friends with. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the study of art history is almost entirely theory these days. Connoisseurship is considered old-fashioned and un-intellectual, and the only people who study it anymore are the auction house experts. (Indeed, auction house education programs are among the very few places where anyone can study connoisseurship.) Your argument presumes that “scholars” are 1) correct and 2) objective.

Historically, a lot of innovative art has been shunned by established critics and scholars. (Take a look at who was elected to the prestigious French academy of fine arts 100 years ago It’s the academic artists, not the Impressionists.)

Today, even scholars aren’t free of the marketplace. One art consultant remarked to me that she could tell, just by looking at a museum exhibit of contemporary art, which dealers the curator was friends with.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the study of art history is almost entirely theory these days. Connoisseurship is considered old-fashioned and un-intellectual, and the only people who study it anymore are the auction house experts. (Indeed, auction house education programs are among the very few places where anyone can study connoisseurship.)

]]> By: Jan Blencowe http://www.artmarketblog.com/2009/12/15/the-spectacle-of-the-art-market-part-3-artmarketblog-com/#comment-2246 Jan Blencowe Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:29:39 +0000 http://artmarketblog.com/?p=2498#comment-2246 On this issue I side with Nicholas Penny, the curator of the British National Gallery and Ralph T. Coe, the former director of the Nelson Gallery-Atkins Museum. Our culture has completely devolved into an entertainment consuming behemoth. Sadly, the most powerful and influential lasting effect of modernity has been that "new and shocking" is better. To be percieved as "derivative" is considered a death knell for an artist. To quote anything from any time prior in art history is now unthinkable. We have entire generations of viewers who are completely ignorant of what has come before in art history and in a great many cases, history of any kind. The highest value is what is "new" , how foolish. King Solomon reminds us that there is nothing new under the sun. If major galleries and museums no longer host "blockbuster" exhibits which typically aim to place art within its cultural and historical context as well as weave threads of connections through subsequent art movements and finally to our own time how will people ever regain an appreciation and understanding of the genius of the human spirit as expressed through the visual arts down through the ages and into our own day? There are plenty of commercial galleries where collectors can buy what delights their eye for their own personal edification without needing to concern themselves with the potential historical value of the pieces. Museums should never abandon their most crucial mission of bringing to the public the vast riches of human achievement in the visual arts and through information and education fostering greater understanding of art's role in the greater scheme of human history and life. On this issue I side with Nicholas Penny, the curator of the British National Gallery and Ralph T. Coe, the former director of the Nelson Gallery-Atkins Museum.

Our culture has completely devolved into an entertainment consuming behemoth. Sadly, the most powerful and influential lasting effect of modernity has been that “new and shocking” is better. To be percieved as “derivative” is considered a death knell for an artist. To quote anything from any time prior in art history is now unthinkable.

We have entire generations of viewers who are completely ignorant of what has come before in art history and in a great many cases, history of any kind. The highest value is what is “new” , how foolish. King Solomon reminds us that there is nothing new under the sun.

If major galleries and museums no longer host “blockbuster” exhibits which typically aim to place art within its cultural and historical context as well as weave threads of connections through subsequent art movements and finally to our own time how will people ever regain an appreciation and understanding of the genius of the human spirit as expressed through the visual arts down through the ages and into our own day?

There are plenty of commercial galleries where collectors can buy what delights their eye for their own personal edification without needing to concern themselves with the potential historical value of the pieces.

Museums should never abandon their most crucial mission of bringing to the public the vast riches of human achievement in the visual arts and through information and education fostering greater understanding of art’s role in the greater scheme of human history and life.

]]> By: Shayne Wulbert http://www.artmarketblog.com/2009/12/15/the-spectacle-of-the-art-market-part-3-artmarketblog-com/#comment-2245 Shayne Wulbert Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:15:54 +0000 http://artmarketblog.com/?p=2498#comment-2245 You make a terrific point. However, at the same time you are alienating collectors who wish to build a collection of works solely because they enjoy looking at them. By asking the aforementioned question about historical significance I fear you are maintaining a common attitude that many find elitist. I am a director of a gallery that maintains a collection of more commercially successful artists, and many of my collecters buy for the reasons that you stated were less valuable than those of scholars. At what point hasn't consumerism driven the contemporary art market? Even the greatest masters who are revered by art history were creating commissioned works for the wealthy and not necessarily for themselves. Albrecht Durer traveled all of Europe peddling his engravings using stealthy sales tactics to influence his contemporary market. I really appreciated your perspective on this matter, but I think it's dangerous to try to predict the museum worthiness and historical significance of a piece/ artist before history actually runs its course. I happen to think the most accurate value should be somewhere between the consumer driven market and the academics and scholars. Thanks for giving me something to think about. You make a terrific point. However, at the same time you are alienating collectors who wish to build a collection of works solely because they enjoy looking at them. By asking the aforementioned question about historical significance I fear you are maintaining a common attitude that many find elitist. I am a director of a gallery that maintains a collection of more commercially successful artists, and many of my collecters buy for the reasons that you stated were less valuable than those of scholars.

At what point hasn’t consumerism driven the contemporary art market? Even the greatest masters who are revered by art history were creating commissioned works for the wealthy and not necessarily for themselves. Albrecht Durer traveled all of Europe peddling his engravings using stealthy sales tactics to influence his contemporary market.

I really appreciated your perspective on this matter, but I think it’s dangerous to try to predict the museum worthiness and historical significance of a piece/ artist before history actually runs its course. I happen to think the most accurate value should be somewhere between the consumer driven market and the academics and scholars.

Thanks for giving me something to think about.

]]>