Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Read and suffer  (Read 4428 times)
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« on: May 28, 2013, 04:39:19 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130417-why-is-art-so-expensive

Rob C
Logged

petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2013, 07:23:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Why suffer?

Peter
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2013, 07:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Why suffer?

Peter


Too poor to buy, not famous enough to sell!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2013, 07:59:36 AM »
ReplyReply


Too poor to buy, not famous enough to sell!...

Not to mention you are still alive. Death of an artist could do wonders for its market value  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2013, 08:33:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I had a discussion with some people on the weekend about this very topic.  The middle of the art market died, at least here in Canada, with the 2008 crash.  People stopped spending on 'luxury' items and art is considered a luxury item.  The market hasn't come back.  The high end of the market is fine; as the article points out.  The low end of the market, the mass-produced schlock that people buy at Wallyworld and such is fine because it's cheap and disposable.  But the middle part of the market is still suffering greatly.

What seems to be happening - and I can only speak for my geographic area - is that the middle and lower ends of the market are being pushed together.  People who used to buy in the middle are pulling back.  Perhaps because they've acquired all they need or their incomes haven't recovered sufficiently from '08.  I have people tell me pretty regularly that 'my walls are full'.  These tend to be middle-aged and older generations.  These are also the people whose incomes would have been most affected by the '08 downturn.  People who used to buy in the schlock market - generally younger - may be starting to look at the middle market as their careers begin to advance but still want the disposability of the stuff they bought in Wallyworld and aren't prepared to pay mid-market prices.  Even the lower end of mid-market prices.  Some artists are lowering prices to make sales but sales don't necessarily equate to income once costs are considered.  I see photographers selling 16x20 framed, good quality pigment inkjet prints for $30 or $40.  They make lots of sales but they don't make any money. 
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2013, 10:04:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I had a discussion with some people on the weekend about this very topic.  The middle of the art market died, at least here in Canada, with the 2008 crash.  People stopped spending on 'luxury' items and art is considered a luxury item.  The market hasn't come back.  The high end of the market is fine; as the article points out.  The low end of the market, the mass-produced schlock that people buy at Wallyworld and such is fine because it's cheap and disposable.  But the middle part of the market is still suffering greatly.

What seems to be happening - and I can only speak for my geographic area - is that the middle and lower ends of the market are being pushed together.  People who used to buy in the middle are pulling back.  Perhaps because they've acquired all they need or their incomes haven't recovered sufficiently from '08.  I have people tell me pretty regularly that 'my walls are full'.  These tend to be middle-aged and older generations.  These are also the people whose incomes would have been most affected by the '08 downturn.  People who used to buy in the schlock market - generally younger - may be starting to look at the middle market as their careers begin to advance but still want the disposability of the stuff they bought in Wallyworld and aren't prepared to pay mid-market prices.  Even the lower end of mid-market prices.  Some artists are lowering prices to make sales but sales don't necessarily equate to income once costs are considered.  I see photographers selling 16x20 framed, good quality pigment inkjet prints for $30 or $40.  They make lots of sales but they don't make any money



Which is exactly the same problem as hit the stock industry, and it was a great industry for a few decades, with big, really good players, amongst the best of which I'd have put Image Bank and my own nest, Tony Stone Worldwide, which became Getty's big acquisition and the start of the present scenario.

As ever, it's the bottom of the pile that's where the rot begins, where little light ever shines and there's really nothing to lose... so you get penny sales and folks think that's made them famous.

I wouldn't do it again, not for a living. What's left to want?

Rob C
Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 446


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2013, 10:14:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to mention you are still alive. Death of an artist could do wonders for its market value  Wink


In one of the "Keller" novels by Lawrence Block, Keller (a professional hit man for hire) and a gallery owner have a 2-3 page discussion on the optimum time to have an artist "whacked". If you like dark humour and dark stories generally, I recommend the book. I can't remember the specific title in which this conversation takes place.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2013, 10:49:51 AM »
ReplyReply

In one of the "Keller" novels by Lawrence Block, Keller (a professional hit man for hire) and a gallery owner have a 2-3 page discussion on the optimum time to have an artist "whacked". If you like dark humour and dark stories generally, I recommend the book. I can't remember the specific title in which this conversation takes place.

Well figure it out, man.  Grin
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2013, 10:55:22 AM »
ReplyReply

It's all marketing, as is made abundently clear by the photographs of Andreas Gursky and Cindy Sherman and by the drippings of Jackson Pollock.
Logged

nemo295
Guest
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2013, 11:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply

"The new job of art is to sit on the wall and get more expensive." – Robert Hughes
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2013, 02:23:22 PM »
ReplyReply

"The new job of art is to sit on the wall and get more expensive." – Robert Hughes


That's brilliant! I must save it up for some future occasion!

Rob C
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1109


« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2013, 06:21:29 PM »
ReplyReply

A man who thinks in harmony with myself is musician, Brian Eno, who said in his journal:

Quote
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s piss or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art."
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2013, 06:36:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Not a lot of the buying public think that way, though.
Logged
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1109


« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2013, 06:43:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Not a lot of the buying public think that way, though.

I have never been one to tune my aspirations to the lowest common denominator — I leave it to my commercial clients to do that for me.

In my personal work I demand the freedom to produce and create without the restrictions imposed by considerations of marketability — I leave that to the sciolist dilettantes,
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2013, 02:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to mention you are still alive. Death of an artist could do wonders for its market value  Wink


"Your music is not yet classical because you are not yet dead. To become classical you have to stop composing and start decomposing"
Michael Flanders, of Flanders and Swann

Jeremy
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2013, 06:26:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I have never been one to tune my aspirations to the lowest common denominator — I leave it to my commercial clients to do that for me.

In my personal work I demand the freedom to produce and create without the restrictions imposed by considerations of marketability — I leave that to the sciolist dilettantes,

Which is why most artists end up dead and broke.  Grin  Read my sig line, I feel similarly, although without the obvious level of scorn.  But I'm sure your commercial clients would be pleased to hear of disdain for them.  Your attitude toward buyers of your art could equally be termed disdainful.  Or perhaps arrogant.  A true artiste?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4998



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2013, 08:57:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Which is why most artists end up dead ...

Only most? Not all?  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2013, 10:00:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Only most? Not all?  Wink


That's right; some are immortal.

I saw on tv this morning that Australia boasts a new Jesus and Mary Mag. They live in the sticks somewhere, and already have a new following. Now there's a cat would make a great agent!

Rob C
Logged

RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #18 on: May 29, 2013, 10:19:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Only most? Not all?  Wink

No, there are some, for example, Peter Lik who seem to do well while they're still alive.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he won't piss it all away before he shuffles off his mortal coil.
Logged
Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 167



« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2013, 10:50:08 PM »
ReplyReply

It's all marketing, as is made abundently clear by the photographs of Andreas Gursky and Cindy Sherman and by the drippings of Jackson Pollock.

Not necessarily. Marcel Duchamp famously said, "Art is either plagiarism or revolution." If the work is truly revolutionary, the art world and its dealers will beat the path to the door. If one just wants to produce for retina, sorry but the art world of the 19th-Century had gone into art history. So it's your pick. By the way, in Cindy Sherman's case, neither Sherman herself nor her dealer Larry Gagosian has ever labeled her as "photographer." In fact, Cindy Sherman started something totally new back in 1970s, which is later called photo-based art. 
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 10:59:05 PM by Gulag » Logged

"The difference which you can make between fine arts and commercial or little art is today corresponded by the difference between the art that obeys and the art that does not obey. Great art does not obey. All others are arts that are of low quality, even pitiful. " - Paul Virilio
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad