"After I read that chapter, I feel like I need to take a shower," said Prof. Yood as he shivers. (something like that, not exact quotation)
We touched on this in discussion a little bit. It's definitely weird reading "The Auction" and reading about the relationship between art and money from the perspective of the artist.
Prostitution comes to mind whenever I initially hear the word auction. It does feel as if pieces of artwork are high-class escorts on the selling block to the highest bidders. The highest bidders get to enjoy the piece for however long they want, and when they're satisfied or done, the piece is put back in the market.
I know this is not how it is exactly, but when I initially think about art auctions, this is what I think of. I realize it is definitely one of the great ways to sell your work, become recognized and famous, and receive big bucks (well half of the big bucks at least).
I get why artists never attend auctions. It would make their stomach turn. But the hope of some recognition and fame and a check at the end of it all would probably help the stomach turn right side up again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why buy art and not use that money towards a greater good, like charity?
Very interesting question to ask those with the money. On one hand, yes, charities and research health institutions (like cancer research) would definitely make good use of the funds. There can be hundreds of thousands of kids all over the world that wouldn't have to starve for months or years with that money. There can be hundreds of clean water pumps placed around the world where clean water is almost non-existent. On the other hand, Prof. Yood makes a good point of the preservation of culture. Buy art, put it into the history books, shape culture, etc. The famous and controversial works of arts back then are now part of our culture now. The famous and controversial works now will be part of the culture of tomorrow.
Who knows, perhaps those who buy art DO donate to charities. They probably have enough money in the bank to buy something for themselves--the art-- and also give to charities and other good causes. I'm an optimist, so I'll say I believe that's what really happens.
Interesting post, Jacquey.
ReplyDeleteIt DOES feel dirty to read and know about this "market", this odd little world of contemporary art. The good thing about it, though, is that artists now may make a living by creating what they want / need to create.
As Prof. Yood was saying in his example of artists pre-19th century, there were at the whim of those commissioning works from them. Many of those artists may have wanted to paint something other than a pastoral landscape or a portrait, but they had to in order to make money to survive.
But, that said, it can be bothersome to read about the seedy-seeming market of big money and high rollers. You point about charity is well-founded, too.
I know there are many art collectors in Chicago who, in addition to paying high prices for artworks, also give to charities ... art-related or not. So, that gives the darkness of this a lighter side.
Great post ...! We'll be talking more about this issue especially while we are looking at the Stone collection at the Art Institute on Thursday!
Best,
CMc
I too think it's great that now, artists can create what they enjoy and what they intend and are able to sell it and make a living off of it! I equate those who are commissioned as they were back then to people who do a lot of commercial work nowadays--such as commercial photography. The feeling I get when I hear about commercial photography is that creative liberty is not really allowed (I'm not talking about high-end fashion photographers). It's an interesting thought though. I'm talking about Sears Photographers or catalog Photographers, etc.
ReplyDelete