Here's an interesting quote from celebrated figurative painter Eric Fischl concerning the current gallery system (reprinted from "Hampton Jitney Magazine"): "What has changed over these last decades is the gallery system. Galleries are in transition now because of the art fairs, auction houses, and the internet. Primary dealers are becoming obsolete. Younger artists understand this implicitly and so don't tie themselves down to one dealer. They are generally more entrepreneurial than my generation was.
Also, collectors are driving the art world more now than in the past. They are able to find young artists before dealers and curators find them. In fact, dealers and curators look to collectors to see who they should be paying attention to. That has been a big change.
The downside is that the new collectors don't seem to know or care that much about the history of art and so approach art in much the same manner as they do their business. They look for trends. They try and corner markets. They buy low and sell high. They treat art as a commodity. It is what they know and what they do best. Good for business, bad for art."
Interesting quote. I think he is mostly correct, except that I don't agree, of course, with his generalized statement "Good for business, bad for art". Even if buying art mimics the stock market, what goes in the museums will be decided upon by curators and major collectors/donors who will more than likely have more concern than the stockbroker.
My generalized statement would be that it is good for the art, and the artist, since there are more options open to the artist. I think it can work out fine for the gallerist, as well, since it allows them to wheel and deal without worrying about making artist happy. Seems like a market more reliant on the individual than a system.
I concur with Sean -though I would also point out its not simply younger artists employing this new working model in today's art world.......its the one I have used for years -it is part of the ideological concept behind sharkforum............
I think Fischl's point is that new collectors focussing only on what's hot and what's trendy is bad for art and artists -- overall. Having more options for artists to sell their work is a good thing, I agree --
A while back artists began to forfeit their powers not only as artists but more importantly as human beings. Power went over to the gallery owners, curators, collectors, fashion, trends, etc. Business is business, but what happened to the idea of being an artists? What happened to loving art? What happened to magic? When artists began to look and act more and more like used car salesman and accountants, we lost something. We encounter a loss of power.
I don't know -- at this point with me, if I didn't show my stuff in a gallery no one would see it...I don't feel that I relinquished power to the gallery owner..it gives me an opportunity for people to see my actual work...believe me, no one is knocking my studio door down to sneak a peak -- If I was a bigger name artist it would be easier for ME to attract an audience -- Other artists I know still feel like artists and I'm sure they would agree that magic is in the air (jeez...that sounds corny)
Huh...? Mr. Diaz, please provide some evidence as to what you are talking about. Was there a time in history when artists did not have to eat? Unless you are a hermit, everybody must suffer the 'indignity' of selling themselves to some extent. I wouldn't describe the artists today as used car salesman, just as I wouldn't describe the artists of yesteryear as 'magical'. There has always been hucksters and heroes.
Nicely said, Sean -- So what other ways are there for the average artist to get their work shown??-- and I'm not speaking of silly neighborhood art fairs or restaurants or your local funky shoe store but a venue that has some respectability attached to it-- Art Centers, Universities, smaller Museums and, oh yeah, GALLERIES --
Why not house parties? Better than coffee shops.... Adds a sense of class to the art. I know plenty of gallerists who got their start that way. They sold art from their home, then moved up. Why not artists. And I'm not talking about apartment galleries, which are bare, often emptied spaces. I'm talking about having a cocktail party in a nice home, inviting some potential buyers. The worst that can happen is you have a conversation and a nice meal. I understand Mr. Kimler has something akin to that at his studio (I get the email adverts now and then), but those seem more like parties and fundraisers, not smaller, intimate parties. I guess the question then is, how do you invite collectors?
I once heard someone suggest a business called "Art Car", which is a limo which takes people around to artist studios. Each artist serves wine, some food. The visitors can then buy or browse. The MCA has something like this, but they seem more exclusive and less populist, which I think artists need to be to survive, until they can afford to be more discriminating.
Let's see...a gallerist throwing an event at their home is a good thing -- (I'm involved with Connie Gillock...she has held openings at her home in Evanston for the last 4 years, very nice events...now she has finally opened an actual space in Evanston on Greenleaf Ave - www.gillockgallery.org). A big-name artist throwing an event at their studio is also a good thing...they are able to attract a large (and important) crowd. Finally, an average no-name artist holding their own opening seems a bit pathetic and sad...again this is the way I see it -- just an opinion -- ( I kinda feel the same way about co-op galleries)
Speaking of Fischl, this is fun:
www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-fischl/george-talks-to-god_b_12931.html
Sean, I was speaking for and about internal power. The thing that substains an artist throughout his/her life. This is the primary food an artist needs to do the work and to live. As a human being, yes offcourse we all need to feed ourselves and some of us are more "hermit" then others. Yes, from time to time we all have to do somethings we prefer not doing, that is part of the human condition. Which can be very complicated depending on your own and overall political, social and economic atmosphere under which you live. It is a very personal thing, how each person handles it and what each person is willing to do. It is not the showing in galleries that strips you of power, it is how you handle the showing. How you handle the gallery owner, how you handle collectors, etc. Plently of artist throughout history (some known to us now, some not so well known) have produced art under great stress and persecussion. They simply believed in the existential necessity to make art. Art as a way of life, as a meditation and philosophical journey. There is a great quote by W. Somerset Maugham, "when a man falls into the water it doesn't matter how he swims, well or badly: he's got to get out or else he'll drown." Also, having and experiencing magic around you has nothing to do with being "magical" as you put it. Artists of "yesteryears" were no more or no less "magical" or encumbered by the fact that they were artists then we are today. But you must admit commercialism is running rampant and chocking us. I believe in the individual.
Mr. Diaz, commercialism opposes individualism? How so?
Mr. Marszalek, you said "Finally, an average no-name artist holding their own opening seems a bit pathetic and sad."
I have to agree, which is why many artists still rely on dealers. Most aren't skilled enough to get the crowd without an established gallery. If you can, great. As far as co-ops, I agree, there is not a vested interest except for common space. I went to a group of artists' studios recently, not a co-op, NOT Pilsen, and they had a great vibe, but then they were in the late 20s--early 40s, so they had some experience and weren't too green behind the ears.
I'm curious though, who reading this board would be willing to show their art at a gallery run from an apartment? Not some so-lame its hip apartment, but a genuine living space run by adults.
Also, I would like to see more art posted on this board. Doesn't make sense to have a blog about art without much art.
This blog is much more than just the visual arts -- though I think there is talk about posting visual art stuff, an online gallery sort of thing...we'll see. I guess most artists are starved for attention (or a meager sale) so they'll hang their work anywhere -
It's sort of a strange comment by Fischl in that it reminds me of what your parents or grandparents would say about how much easier things are today than in their days. I think it's easy for Fischl to reminisce about the good 'ol days and make the analogy to the heydays of the stockmarket, big bucks, Yuppies, Collector Clubs et al because he was so completely submerged within the system, and what the late 80's represented to art in general. I'm not so sure he feels the same pressure(s) as a "younger artist" does today.
I believe that in order for the artworld to work to everyone's advantage artists and galleries need to define for themselves what they want and expect from each other. If the grass is always greener on the other side and there's this sterotypical lure of fame, money, the next big collector - artists and galleries are going to continue to swim where the waters are warm and not necessarily with each other.
Kevin Freitas
The money being thrown around in today's art world makes the 80's (Elizabeth Peyton, John Currin both making sales in the $600,000.00 range-) seem like small potatoes-
..................................sharkforum welcomes input, when intelligent observation and opinion, devoid of venal, insipid insults/remarks is offered up, it will find its way on to our site-
Kevin, I think you have Fischl's comment backwards -- besides not saying that "his" past was any easier than the present time, he states that collectors now treat art as a commodity more than they did in the past -- that's where Wesley's comment comes in with Peyton and Currin (plus many others) getting outrageous sums of money for their work -- let's see where these current artists are 20 years from now --
Freitas said: "I believe that in order for the artworld to work to everyone's advantage artists and galleries need to define for themselves what they want and expect from each other."
Impossible, unless you believe in fairy tales or Communism. No matter how far humans evolve we will always take advantage of one another, and never cooperate in business in an altruistic sense (charity serves the purpose of helping one believe they are selfless and moral, if only for a moment). What people want is one of the following things: money, fame, sex, power, or all of the above. In any case, someone is always getting fucked.
(There is one other desire people seek, probably the most common, and that is safety, which is masturbation.)
If you don't like the gallery system, don't support it. If you need support, find it or make it, but don't wait for someone to offer or even agree to help.
Reminds me of a George Carlin comedy act I saw recently, where he falsely claimed humans are the only animal species to kill our peers for self-serving purposes. Bears and lions often maul their own kind, even their own family members to protect turf. I might say its only natural, but the New Year is upon us, so I'll wait another week before I'm cynical again. Whoops, too late.
Norbert said: "let's see where these current artists are 20 years from now --"
My guess is in museums and on display. People used to say that about the 80s lot of artists, and their stature does die down for a time after the selling abates, but once an artist reaches that price level, collectors can't afford to let his fame wane. Now 100 years, sure, many will be forgotten and relegated to the warehouse.
So what other ways are there for the average artist to get their work shown??-- and I'm not speaking of silly neighborhood art fairs or restaurants or your local funky shoe store but a venue that has some respectability attached to it-- Art Centers, Universities, smaller Museums and, oh yeah, GALLERIES --
Sean, I don't believe anymore in Fairy Tales than I do someone pretending to be a purveyor of taste and intelligence when it comes to speaking, writing, thinking, blogging or even making art.
Norbert hit on it with his question about finding "respectable" venues to show. This is where I was refering to the working together part - the lure of credibility. Decide for yourself what you want, need to survive, and if you want to work with someone or not. I'm not expecting a handout but I think a lot of artists are when chasing fame, glory, respectability/credibility by association to an individual, group, gallery, curator etc.
My guess is in museums and on display. People used to say that about the 80s lot of artists, and their stature does die down for a time after the selling abates, but once an artist reaches that price level, collectors can't afford to let his fame wane. Now 100 years, sure, many will be forgotten and relegated to the warehouse.
I think this just tells more about the artist's notoriety, selling/staying power, quality/interest of the work than any speculative practices. Which brings up the question who lets Peyton and Currin's work get to this level? Or for that matter, Fischl's?
Kevin Freitas
who lets? -how about, who creates a context and who promulgates and propogates.........to me, Fischl looks masterly compared with a fake like Currin -not to mention the completely forgettable and mediocre watercolor confections of Elizabeth Peyton........over a half a million dollars for this stuff.......can we possibly reproduce here on sharkforum Jed Perl's brilliant essay on Currin -Beyond Belief?........
Feitas asked: "Which brings up the question who lets Peyton and Currin's work get to this level? Or for that matter, Fischl's?"
People with money, the way its always been. If you don't like it, get some money and choose your own art stars to support.
Actually, your wording annoys me. No one 'let' them get to any level. It just happened through any combination of dumb luck and a bit of talent. If success had gatekeepers or there were a formula, it wouldn't be so elusive. It is unpredictible, which is why failure, which is more common, is frustrating. Its also why most people seek safety, which is more predictible and less frustrating.
Right on Sean -- I really like your line "dumb luck and a bit of talent"...Wesley, I have heard of Perl's article but never read it...I'll look into it - There was another article by James Panero from "The New Criterion" that was pretty zingy too --
Thanks, Norbert.
Wesley, I liked Currin's work, but I'm open to hear why you think he's a fake. Is it the content, the style, the skill, or something else?
I do think he is a bit too fashionable ....the portraits of his model-wife only encourages this idea.
We are talking about really silly things here and some of you are bending over and agreeing with each other for reasons unclear to me (maybe they are all to clear). John Currin is a lousy artist for that matter so is Fischl (better than Currin).
What makes a Van Gogh worth $50,000,000.00? Some Japanese businessman who knows nothing at all about ART plays the art market and pays this amount because someone suggested it was a good deal. It is all so silly.
This is not what art is about. So far all I have read in this blog is things that have to do with money and commerce. Which brings me back to my original post, something about used car salesman and accountants. These conversations do nothing for the spirit of art or artists.
Sean you speak with great authority while in the "safety" (a word you seem to use alot) of your computer keyboard, love to know abit more about you and the rest of you. Wesley, I met once in his studio a few years back. Found you to be an intelligent, talented and passionate fellow. What about the idea of holding some these discussions face to face without the "safety" of your computer screen. Perhaps once a month, or every two months.
Peace
Sean I disagree, I was never much a believer in the "Immaculate Conception," or just dumb luck in general when it comes to life. That and money. At least money as the root of all evil or the changer of one's destiny - artistic or otherwise. Do you really believe for one moment that people with money as you broadly state, are the ONLY players responsible for an artists hyperbol journey to fame and fortune? I don't hear a lot of artists saying NO I don't want to sell, No I do not wish to be in this museum collection, NO I do not want to be curated into this prestigious exhibit, NO please do not write about my show etc. There are no masters without slaves as they say.
I do have several (my own private art stars) in my home, bought with my own money, of which Donald Lipski is the only notable one purchased from Rhona Hoffman Gallery many many years ago. I hardly think I contributed to the success or failure of any of the artist's work I've purchased over the years but then again, I wasn't the only one contributing to his or their stature/recognition. Some you could equally argue are less talented than others, but it's a mute point.
Why is it that everytime there's an explanation to be given for the ills of an artist's career - success or otherwise, it's the big bad world of big bucks, the Man, or mysterious outside forces plotting to purposely screw the clueless artist over. Isn't it time to decide for ourselves as artists, what we want and don't? Working within the system in order to change it is great, given that you're not using the same tools as everyone else - take control and get it done.
Kevin Freitas
Ricardo, the original theme of this blog was about the gallery system and MONEY -- and there has been a logical progression with all our postings...yeah these conversations may do nothing for the spirit of art but then again we are discussing the business side of art, which does exist. Also, I think we are planning actual events
Like it or not Kevin, dumb luck plays a huge roll in our success and failures -
That some artists get overhyped today by the trade journals is not unlike what happens in other fields. However, having worked at my share of museums as a curator involved w/ the Directors in acquisitions, I would question where some of u r getting your price quotes. Collectors, although wealthy, often come from backgrounds where if they don't perceive getting something at a bargain or a fair price, they don't bite. Moreover, leasing is very popular. And often things are bought on payment plans, so that by 5 years down the road the collector wants the next thing for their villa in the Caymans, they will deal an old work back to the gallery b4 the work was fully paid for. I would not believe prices until u c a final bill of sale or an insurance policy. That collectors and dealers can have a big disconnect to what the artists are thinking, no doubt. In my young days in Soho, I had a friend who 'knew' Vito Acconci; he was a pretty good person, but had been forced to produce a set of drawings for Castelli. He didn't draw worth shit. We visited him at his little side show in Castelli since the gallery ordered him to be there for clients. So, he's sitting in this little niche of the gallery on one of those fancy tubular Mies chairs telling me and Gael how stupidly embarrassed he was w/ these 'Modernist' pastels, and they were, at best, clumsy. The whole time we're talking there is this din in the next room where finally an older women says w/ command, 'well, look, my house on the Hudson needs something over my green sofa, and none of these will do.' Then an older woman is led to the elevator by the gallery director. Then we watch as an Oldenburg eraser pencil/wash, a 'signed' Elizabeth Taylor Warhol painting (not a print) and a Lichtenstein war comic classic get carried past us to storage. We all looked at each other like 'Oh well.' As an art student in my third year, i learned more about the art world in a day than I could have in years. And not much has changed.