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

[john]

Good discussion..

Of course the art market also is still about plain Jane ummm, I mean boring Bob landscapes and still lifes and reproductions of golden lit Kinkade cottages.

Somewhere in between conceptual digital bits of Banksy and soppy Kinkades there is still a huge place for "better" art. Fortunately the average person of taste still wants something on their walls other than them. I know I do.

The latest craze/fad outlandish confounding art gets a lot of attention but that attention is not necessarily a measure of merit.

I find these vids interesting as it is about the stuff in big time galleries in big cities around the world. The stuff there isn't digital Banksy bits or Kinkades or any Boring John landscape I may paint. A lot of current gallery works defy description.

https://www.youtube.com/c/MaryLynnBuchananYT

 

[Artyczar]

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.

I'm so sorry if I made you feel unheard and misunderstood. That was not my intention at all. I totally apologize.

 

[GrantCee]

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.

It's interesting — historically, most of what we know about the people of past civilizations comes from their art, and yet art isn't considered "important" or "valuable" to a large segment of our present civilization.

One of life's many ironies.

 

[Artyczar]

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....

I apologize to you too if you felt I misheard you about feeling resentment toward the artists themselves.

It is very unfortunate that your friend chose to paint differently and altered his style so that he could manage his career. That makes me sad. I personally think that is selling out. Selling out is when you do something you don't want to do but do it anyway. But, that is also another type of artmaking. It's called being a commercial artist, not a fine artist. There is a difference. An artist that makes work for others--nothing wrong or lesser is a different type of artist than one who is making exactly what they want, all the time, every time. I know a lot of "fine artists" that make the work they want, but they repeat the same exact painting (practically) over and over again because they fell on something that people bought. Maybe they want to make that painting over and over, or maybe they are doing it to make money. Maybe THEY are laughing all the way to the bank? We don't know for sure, but I do know artists that do that. They never change and never evolve or experiment. But that is their choice. That is okay though. As long as it's their choice. Doing something you don't want to do is sad (to me).

Also, don't apologize for your opinion. I respect your opinion.

 

[Bartc]

Good discussion..

Of course the art market also is still about plain Jane ummm, I mean boring Bob landscapes and still lifes and reproductions of golden lit Kinkade cottages.

Somewhere in between conceptual digital bits of Banksy and soppy Kinkades there is still a huge place for "better" art. Fortunately the average person of taste still wants something on their walls other than them. I know I do.

The latest craze/fad outlandish confounding art gets a lot of attention but that attention is not necessarily a measure of merit.

I find these vids interesting as it is about the stuff in big time galleries in big cities around the world. The stuff there isn't digital Banksy bits or Kinkades or any Boring John landscape I may paint. A lot of current gallery works defy description.

https://www.youtube.com/c/MaryLynnBuchananYT

Funny that you mention both Banksy and Kinkade, because in my last post I had written them in and took it out to avoid offending anyone else's taste. I find both to be masters of market manipulation, but they have been successful at it, no arguing with that part. And I don't say that to be dismissive of any abstract form of modern art either, even though I have limited appreciation of those genres too.

If I had the immense wealth necessary, I would not buy the Mona Lisa (though I fully appreciate Leonardo and his technical mastery). Instead I would buy Girl with the Pearl Earring or some of Picasso's Blue Period, or Modigliani, etc. I would not buy a Warhol soup can (though I do see some value in some of his work), rather I would gladly buy a Thiebaud lunch counter painting. You couldn't give me a Pollock, but I would stare for hours at a Rothko. You couldn't give me a Basquiat, but I would kill for any piece from the walls of Lascaux. Just my personal tastes, nothing more. I see abstracts and "sculptures" that do intrigue me in museums that are very recent and might like those for a lark along side Degas' little ballerina, or a Manuel Neri or a Giacometti. I have to stop and stare in wonder for a long time at our museum's multi-screen woods by Hockney. I have appreciated neon light art, ikebana, Andy Goldsworthy's land art - my tastes are far more eclectic than you would guess from my prior posts. And while I think his work is really kitsch, I give immense credit to Bob Ross for teaching millions to appreciate the possibility of painting.

Yet a lot of the stuff that adorns museums, galleries and auction houses today leaves me totally cold.

 

[john]

The cynical jaded New Yorker in me says it's all pretty boring now. Cows cut in half barely raise an eyebrow anymore. Social outrage statements involving racism and sexism still seem to sell well and rich people will buy any large thing made by an "up and coming artist" or one that has "passed on". Huge mylar Mickey Mouse heads and graffiti paintings decorate houses in the Hamptons and even better, appreciate in monetary value. Everyone looks over the hedges at the other trying to figure out what good art is because a lot of it looks like crap. No one really knows and they think someone else does and can validate their tastes.


But that's what my cranky cynical side says.

 

[Artyczar]

Funny that you mention both Banksy and Kinkade, because in my last post I had written them in and took it out to avoid offending anyone else's taste. I find both to be masters of market manipulation, but they have been successful at it, no arguing with that part. And I don't say that to be dismissive of any abstract form of modern art either, even though I have limited appreciation of those genres too.

If I had the immense wealth necessary, I would not buy the Mona Lisa (though I fully appreciate Leonardo and his technical mastery). Instead I would buy Girl with the Pearl Earring or some of Picasso's Blue Period, or Modigliani, etc. I would not buy a Warhol soup can (though I do see some value in some of his work), rather I would gladly buy a Thiebaud lunch counter painting. You couldn't give me a Pollock, but I would stare for hours at a Rothko. You couldn't give me a Basquiat, but I would kill for any piece from the walls of Lascaux. Just my personal tastes, nothing more. I see abstracts and "sculptures" that do intrigue me in museums that are very recent and might like those for a lark along side Degas' little ballerina, or a Manuel Neri or a Giacometti. I have to stop and stare in wonder for a long time at our museum's multi-screen woods by Hockney. I have appreciated neon light art, ikebana, Andy Goldsworthy's land art - my tastes are far more eclectic than you would guess from my prior posts. And while I think his work is really kitsch, I give immense credit to Bob Ross for teaching millions to appreciate the possibility of painting.

Yet a lot of the stuff that adorns museums, galleries and auction houses today leaves me totally cold.

I too am a fan of Modigliani. I also like Goldsworthy, Rothko, and Degas. My tastes have a huge range. I like Thiebaud's earlier work and his landscapes. Vermeer was just a Master of light, that is for sure. The Girl with the Pearl Earring is not my favorite of his, but some of his others knock me over on the floor. You also couldn't give me a Pollock. I never liked that sort of spill/splat stuff, but I always appreciated his contribution in the context of his time. I do like Basquiat and would never turn something of his down, but probably would not buy one because they are kinda expensive!

I'm actually more in love with contemporary artists that are alive today, though Paul Klee and Van gogh are all my time favorites, I'd have to say.

Maybe one artist who is a big irritant of mine is Jeff Koons. His kitschy crap makes me a little sick at time. Or maybe all the time, especially because he hardly has much to do in the making of any of it. I understand he is the "creator," or rather the designer, but he panders to the art market much, or exactly, in the way you are talking about, me thinks.

EDIT: Oh, and I don't just love "contemporary" work. I love a lot of realism, or types of realism too. I really like landscapes and I've introduced a lot of different artists on this forum, like Aron Wiesenfeld, for instance, who paints in an interesting kind of realism. And Kim McCarty who is a watercolor artist that paints expressionistic figurative works (I like her subjects on children, but I can't find them). Kerry James Marshall too.

 

[Bartc]

Koons? You mean the toy designer? LOL

 

[Artyczar]

Did you ever see his statue of the monkey with Michael Jackson???

 

[Bartc]

Did you ever see his statue of the monkey with Michael Jackson???

No. He's the kind of kitsch master I would never follow.
Give me a Daumier, not a Lichetenstein!
Are these kinds of art cute or smirk worthy? You'll never know, because I'm wearing my mask....
One of my all time favorites - if I must allow "message art" into my life - was a piece call "Artist Shit" by Piero Mansoni. A grocery store pyramid of tuna cans, each labeled in a different language with the words for "artist shit". A wry poke at the art market and the museum taste makers of the 60s, and yet, it played in various museums! Message not received, I guess.

 

[Artyczar]

I'm very familiar. It was a very Duchamp message in my opinion.

I never minded Lichetenstein, as those works were very much hand crafted, but I didn't like how he repeated that stuff throughout his entire life.

The Michael Jackson with the monkey was not something I followed. It was just a very well-known piece in the contemporary art world that was plastered all over the place, like Damien Hirst's shark--in the magazines and all over the internet. "All the Rage." Yuck. It was purposely gawdy with gold leaf.

Hirst's shark (in case you've never seen it):

 

[Bartc]

OK, I have now reached the limit of my tolerance for the NFT phenomenon:
Woman sells her eggs as NFT

 

[wirfi]

I'm staying away from NFTs for several reason:
* environmental
* I'm a programmer by day, I don't want to do digital stuff at my spare time to
* I'm just not attracted to it

 

[Artyczar]

OK, I have now reached the limit of my tolerance for the NFT phenomenon:
Woman sells her eggs as NFT

If you read that, it's a legit work of art. She just incorporated the contract for how to access her eggs into the art itself. But I understand your protest to it.

I have made art that incorporated my gallery rejection letters before. I didn't make a digital version to sell, nor a limited-edition print, but I sold the actual original. It's really not SO different than making a limited-edition print really. It's just a digital version. You could look at it that way.

I do understand your view on this being a "gimmick." It certainly could be and be seen that way. Who would want her particular eggs anyway? She's 42!

 

[AES]

OK, I have now reached the limit of my tolerance for the NFT phenomenon:
Woman sells her eggs as NFT

I'm no DCF lawyer, but this sounds like a lawsuit in the making.

 

[16ga]

OK, I have now reached the limit of my tolerance for the NFT phenomenon:
Woman sells her eggs as NFT

I don't think that's how egg tempera is supposed to work.....

 

[Trier]

??? . . .

 

[stlukesguild]

I've long felt that this comic strip by Bill Watterson remains one of the most insightful comments upon the art market:

The assessment of art as something used by the elite to promote their own illusions of superiority has long been... if not always been... true. Art like this...

... was created thousands of years ago with the intention of promoting the power and superiority of the rulers of the time.

Renaissance masterworks such as this...

... or this...

... or even this...

... were produced under the patronage of wealthy and powerful Italian families: the Gonzagas, the Medici, and the Della Rovere (Pope Julius II). The works reinforced the illustrious name and taste of those individuals and families with little or no concern for the opinions of the largely illiterate masses.

If things have changed today it may be due in part by the desire of the "elites" to maintain the illusion of their superior intellect and sophistication in a culture in which a great many of the masses are far more educated... even having college degrees. Modernism led to a belief that the greatest art of a given era is misunderstood and/or shocking. But we live in an era in which Manet, Picasso... or even DeKooning are no longer really shocking to a good many. Koons, however... or a banana taped to the wall. That is something altogether different.

If I have issues with the art market it has less to do with art that I feel is little more than stupid gimmicks and novelties and more to do with the absolute dominance of the market by a very few super-wealthy individuals. Almost all the contemporary (and near-contemporary) art we see in major galleries, in the art media, in museum exhibitions, or taught in art schools is that championed and collected by a few super-wealthy individuals. The Board of Trustees of Museums, universities, and art schools is made up of these individuals. The art media... and the critics who work for them... are supported by advertising dollars from the major galleries. A recent study pointed to the fact that a vast majority of recent museum exhibitions by living artists featured artists represented by the largest 5 or so galleries. As George Carlin famously stated, "it's a big club... and you ain't in it!"

Now certainly, there are many other art galleries and many other artists of real merit who make a living from their art alone. Nor do I mean to suggest that none of the artists in the BIG CLUB are of real merit. What I do take umbrage with is the notion that the only art of any real value is that which has been championed and collected by the super-wealthy and promoted in Art News and Art in America... sold at Gagosian, Pace, or Zwirner, and taught at Cal Arts and Yale.

 

[stlukesguild]

I never minded Lichtenstein, as those works were very much hand crafted, but I didn't like how he repeated that stuff throughout his entire life.

I became disgusted by Lichtenstein when I discovered that not only was he inspired by but blatantly stole the images of poor comic book artists.

Lichtenstein was smart enough to never lift images from Marvel or DC or Disney or any other big-name publisher with deep pockets. Instead, he stole images from smaller comics on war and romance. He never acknowledged... let alone reimbursed the artists whose images he stole.

 

[Bartc]

It could well be said that what those wealthy taste dictators are engaging in is ARTIFICE and not ART. But again, that's just my personal opinion. I'm with the guy who ate the banana.