How do you all feel about the art market these days?

[Bartc]

Seriously, what is wrong with the art market? Who buys this and what good does it do in the world?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/...veHkRa17KDTUwbhQfmViVJ43r5QZ2UAkbWVcTlOASDmYc

 

[16ga]

I can't read the the article without subscribing. But from the title did they cut up a painting and sell the parts?

 

[Bartc]

Sorry about the paywall on the article. Yes, somebody bought the "art" for many millions and plans to sell the shredded pieces as NFTs.

 

[AES]

Here's a no paywall one.

MSN

This NFT stuff is fascinating. I really wish I was the kind of person who knows how to cash in on stuff like this.

 

[P. Barrie]

They are selling the “concept” of owning a “share“ of a famous painting that “they” promiss to never re-sell? Reminds me of selling a blank space on a wall that represents the concept / idea of an artwork. So...what’s it really worth? Perhaps whatever $ can be made by “selling” the share to someone else for more $....?? The age old pyramid scam?

 

[Artyczar]

It's not worthless because it's on a blockchain. If you know what that is. It's kept track of so that no one else can claim ownership. This is how NFTs work, and it's usually paid for with Bitcoin. It can also be paid for with cash money, and that is up to the buyer whether or not they want to own a NFT. It is not comparable to a pyramid scheme. Those work very differently and are illegal.

There is a market for NFTs and they can go for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. It's been popular for a while now. Some are temporary, like they can self-destruct after a certain amount of time. It's about the tech as much as it's about the art, and yes, it has something to do with concept because they are not owning a tangible "thing."

There is an artist that creates amazing digital works of art who will not sell prints of, but he will sell a limited edition on a thumb drive or transfer, like three of them. Anyone could copy it once they get the thumb drive or transfer, I'm sure, but there is a key in the file it that can tell whether it's an "original" or a copy, and whether it gets printed, which he does not want the buyer to do. You can say it's a matter of trust, but when it comes to resale, any copy of it is worthless because of the blockchain.

 

[Artyczar]

You ask "What good does it do in the world?" What good does any art do in the world? Why does art have to be tangible. Is this the point you're trying to make by asking this question? I'm just genuinely curious. Any successful art is when the viewer or audience can somehow interact with the work. This kind of work is definitely participatory if you ask me. It makes people question, which is always a good thing. It stops people and gets them to think. Even you are thinking, well what is art? Is this "art?" And how is it relevant. All art movements of the past have challenged society in the exact same way.

 

[16ga]

So they aren't damaging the original painting but creating a digital copy of it and people are buying pieces of that?

 

[Artyczar]

So they aren't damaging the original painting but creating a digital copy of it and people are buying pieces of that?

That's what it looks like, from what I gather. The original painting was shredded in front of a live audience during an auction. I guess they have digitized the shredded pieces and are selling those as NFTs. ...and not just the long shredded pieces, but pieces of those pieces. It sounds like they are chopping those up into tiny pieces and digitizing those. So it's digital version of a tiny bit of that painting. The original painting was already damaged when it was shredded during the auction.

 

[AES]

The original painting was already damaged when it was shredded during the auction.

I guess now I know why they used a Banksy for this.
I thought the original idea was pretty funny, but all the obvious (and highly monetized) copycats just seem lame, to me.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/03/banksys-shredded-artwork-now-valued-at-8m-up-from-1-3m/

 

[16ga]

hmmm....
Sounds really strange. I really don't understand the whole NFT thing but its not something that I would invest in.

 

[GrantCee]

You ask "What good does it do in the world?" What good does any art do in the world? Why does art have to be tangible. Is this the point you're trying to make by asking this question? I'm just genuinely curious. Any successful art is when the viewer or audience can somehow interact with the work. This kind of work is definitely participatory if you ask me. It makes people question, which is always a good thing. It stops people and gets them to think. Even you are thinking, well what is art? Is this "art?" And how is it relevant. All art movements of the past have challenged society in the exact same way.

I'll admit to having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of the NFT. Then again, perhaps it's really not so different and I really do understand it more than I think I do — because the more I try to understand it, the more I realize it's not unlike music (a subject with which I have some familiarity.)

Music exists only when it's performed. Prior to the invention of sound recording, music existed only in the minds of those who heard it performed live. Yes, it was written on paper, but the writing wasn't sound, and couldn't be interpreted at all by someone who didn't know how to read it. The average person couldn't look at it and hear the music. It was, in effect, encoded; you needed someone who both knew how to read the code, and had an instrument on which he/she could perform it. When the performance was over, the music went back into its non-consumable coded form and it effectively ceased to exist. (One could argue that recorded music is the same, it's just ubiquitously decodable.)

A NFT, as an artwork, exists in a form that requires specialized equipment to view; when the viewing is finished, it reverts to its coded state. When the person buys it, like the person buying a sheet of music, the artwork doesn't really exist — what they're buying isn't the artwork itself, but a license to view (or perform) the artwork. They both require something to translate it into a consumable (viewable/hearable) form, and once the viewer/listener is done, it only exists in their memory of it.

The NFT just does to visual art what's been done to music for millennia.

 

[Bartc]

You ask "What good does it do in the world?" What good does any art do in the world? Why does art have to be tangible. Is this the point you're trying to make by asking this question? I'm just genuinely curious. Any successful art is when the viewer or audience can somehow interact with the work. This kind of work is definitely participatory if you ask me. It makes people question, which is always a good thing. It stops people and gets them to think. Even you are thinking, well what is art? Is this "art?" And how is it relevant. All art movements of the past have challenged society in the exact same way.

Arty, we come to the divergence between us as to what we appreciate in "art". This is just my personal judgement and nothing more. YMMV

Yes, I agree that it is "art" even by my own definition, and it also is "interactive" as you posit. If that is what you value in art, so be it and go buy it. This NFT craze to me is just a gimmick. Only time will tell on that front.

To me it's just more foolishness of no real consequence or lasting value. And as you know, it's my personal pet peeve that so many artists get zero recognition, damn little appreciation, and very little compensation for the kind of art that I do personally appreciate, while this stuff gets tons of all of those way out of proportion to any intrinsic value that I can appreciate. Again, I emphasize that it's just my value and my preference, not a rule for the world.

When I first moved to California I encountered then early forms of large scale "land art" in the form of Christo's "Running Fence". I was totally amused and bewildered about why anyone would do this, would pay for it, or would care. Even stranger to me was Christo's statement that a large part of his art form was that "interactive" nature you attribute to this stuff; people couldn't help reacting, even if their reaction was negative. Then I had the experience of actually viewing the art work in the wild and I changed my opinion completely. It was both interesting and esthetically pleasing to my eye, and from then on I kept my eye on Christo and came to appreciate his works. NOT as interactive, though they clearly were on a human (not just political) scale; rather as esthetically pleasing. Only a few pictures of the Running Fence really capture some of that visual appeal (it was too big for photography alone to capture totally, as is the Grand Canyon). But whenever I visit the area I still appreciate his vision.

Bottom line is that I find the current crop of expensive darling artworks in the major markets unappealing to me esthetically, and I am personally doubtful they have any lasting value. So there is nothing there but the artist laughing at the rest of us all the way to the bank. Just my opinion, which in the end is worth what you paid for it....

 

[Artyczar]

Just to make it clear Bart, I personally do not want to buy any NFTs and do not see, nor know/have the opinion that it will be of lasting value. If fact, I have no clue and don't really predict it will be. For now, it is a "craze." It seems like it's something, for the most part--not in the Banksy case--that people like to spend their Bitcoin on. Their Bitcoin is just sitting in their virtual wallets and they think it's fun to spend it on these NFTs. Whatever. I haven't made any NFTs of my own, and while I have Bitcoin myself, I wouldn't spend mine on any NFTs either, nor would I invest real money into it. I think it's a waste and would rather spend my money on tangible art that I can hang up and enjoy. And I do!

When I say "interactive," I mean that a painting by one of the Masters is also interactive for purely aesthetic reasons, and the same exact reasons as how you came to like Christo. You came to find find beauty in it just by looking at it and experiencing it. I guess I mean the experience of viewing or any kind of experience with the art. Any experience, and maybe "interaction" and "participation" is more like any type of connection. I am hoping you get what I mean. It can also be a negative one too.

You said that you still agree that it's "art" by your definition and that was all I was getting out. I didn't say it was GOOD art! I have not yet released my opinion about that. I only accept that it's art. I only accept that some people like it and want to spend their money on it. I can not control what people do. I can't be mad at people for buying one work of art and not another because that is life. Life is not "fair." And what is "fair?" Nothing. We could dive into all kinds of things in society here, but let's not. It's not just about art and I know you know that.

Art--it's so subjective. You have a right to have pet peeves, as do I. I don't have any particular one here. I don't have any issues with the filthy rich spending millions of dollars on houses, cars, art, and their own islands. I mean, I do, but they have nothing to do with my world. And there's nothing I can do about this. It's an entirely different market than the one I deal in anyway. I will never be in any top 1% of anything. The entire top 1% (in general) could peeve me until monkeys fly out of my ass. Everything in society is disproportionate.

However, I DO understand your feelings about the "zero" recognition. I can easily feel that way too. I do sometimes. My earlier pet peeve about being self-taught and getting no recognition among my peers, despite how much harder I worked is an example of that. But this is not an easy road. It's chalk-full of competition and rejection. Unless you're doing this as a hobby and not expecting monetary reciprocation, it's very, very difficult to get recognition. You have to constantly redefine success.

 

[Bartc]

Arty, I see that most of us artists (or dabblers, whatever) do want at least some appreciation. It's not the sole motivation, but it's there somewhere usually. Since I don't seek to sell my works, other than my own satisfaction, it's about all there is to a sense of it being valued for me. For those of our ilk whether selling or not, I would wish some form of appreciation from others. Of all the endeavors in life that don't get their due respect, artists seem to get undue disrespect!

Of course life isn't fair. Been there, done that. But for artists it seems particularly like our society goes out of its way to be especially unfair.

I just find myself more than bemused and bewildered by the high end art market; I'm actually offended by it at times. Just my pet peeve and I'm not quiet about it.

So is it jealousy? Nope. Is it frustration? Absolutely.

 

[Arnie]

....... Unless you're doing this as a hobby and not expecting monetary reciprocation, it's very, very difficult to get recognition. You have to constantly redefine success.

I would agree with this. I'm blessed in that I can paint purely as a hobby for my mental well being. I've lost count of the number of times i've been told i should sell my paintings, and resisted putting time into setting up my own site etc. etc.. 5 years after my previous marketing attempt i had a go with ArtPal last year. Spent a good day selecting my best work and making it look good, dripped in $20 for promotion, sat back and waited for the sales....another $10 dripped in - and yes 200 views per day for a while, but sales zero except friends. 9 months on I notice ArtPal now has 60K more artists on board - say $20 each thats good business even if they dont ship any prints! Yes getting recognition is difficult.

......I just find myself more than bemused and bewildered by the high end art market;..........

So is it jealousy? Nope. Is it frustration? Absolutely.

Would agree, not jealousy, but frustration is a good word - there is some wonderful creative/expressive stuff out there along side the bizzar.

 

[Artyczar]

Hi Bartc,

I totally understand. I have always pushed for artists who sell their work to demand higher prices. I don't know if you are for that or not, but it's because it's a matter of respect. If they could hold out for the price they really want (if it's at all possible) that's always what I advice them to do, if only to prove a point and demand we be treated like any other human being because many people think we should charge nearly nothing for our hard work. So, I think maybe? we are on the same page when it comes to that.

 

[Artyczar]

Would agree, not jealousy, but frustration is a good word - there is some wonderful creative/expressive stuff out there along side the bizzar.

I think, or personally, it feels like, resentment, which is not exactly jealously, and not fully frustration. I only say that because I deal with a lot of artists being part of the LA art scene, and I have come across many reactions to my art across many different types of genres of artists. I am not among the most bizarre, but I have been lumped into that category before. A lot of resentment has been thrown at me--for selling at higher prices than some other artists, or being with higher end galleries, or wining grants, etc., even though I worked for it. But I'm told it's "luck." Not the result of my work, and especially not my skill or artwork. I have not heard the end of it. I have resentment in the opposite direction for this and can understand how some artists that make traditional art who might not like or understand artists like me can feel sometimes. It doesn't feel good. This might be why I stick up for artists that maybe seem "bizarre" to artists that make traditional work. I don't have to like all the odd or bizarre art that's out there, but I'm an advocate of artists that push boundaries and try to do very different forms of art. I feel I can appreciate all kinds of art. It is one of the reasons I created this place. I can talk about any kind of art all day long (when I have the time!). I find beauty in pretty much everything, even when I don't particularly like it, if that makes sense.

 

[Arnie]

Ah. I was going to say in my previous post that i dont do social media, as words dont come easily to me - I have to spend ages crafting posts - and the art market requires a big presence in social media to drive sales - thats just the way it is - and thats ok with me - i just enjoy what i do.

I think, or personally, it feels like, resentment, which is not exactly jealously, and not fully frustration.

If I wanted to express resentment I would go out and say so.
I said quote 'Would agree, not jealousy, but frustration is a good word - there is some wonderful creative/expressive stuff out there along side the bizzar.'
I included the appreciation to avoid such a negative interpretation however I apologize if my use of the 'bizare' was a red flag for you.
I was refering to art which was 'very strange or unusual' ie not comprehendable to my eye and/or art which produced an emotional response in me which I did not like.

 

[Bartc]

Any resentment I might feel would be toward the art market, not necessarily toward the artist. That one creates art that I don't particularly appreciate doesn't engender any resentment in me, nor even frustration nor jealousy. I don't resent that someone "made it", rather that the market appears to me to reward a lot of gimmickry and junk these days. But I'm not their buyer, so what I think means less than zero to them. Just the way the world works.

One of my painting friends, who spent years on the street hawking art then got an MFA and lives today by what he sells, illustrates why I feel that way. He paints in an Impressionist style and he can paint very well indeed. But at some point he noted that he was altering his style and technique only because he recognized that it was what the market segment he inhabits would rather buy, as opposed to his personal best. When I see him working so hard, then I look at a how some artists of note managed the market, I feel sadness and frustration. That the art business rewards one so handsomely when another of great value (to my taste) has to struggle is where I draw the line. Then I see the duck-taped banana and the Banksy gimmick and it puts me over the top. Sorry, but that's the way I feel about it.

When the duck-taped banana thing hit, I was joking with my colleagues that it would be our next fundraiser. I went down to our kitchen, took a banana from the box, got a roll of duck tape, and taped it to the white door of one's office. Everyone including me was in hysterics. When she went to remove it, I scolded her that she was destroying $120K of my art work, as evidenced by the market value. Just in case you thought I lacked a sense of humor about all this....