Occupy Art

By Felix Salmon
November 19, 2012

In the art world, the courtiers are revolting:

Dave Hickey, a curator, professor and author known for a passionate defence of beauty in his collection of essays The Invisible Dragon and his wide-ranging cultural criticism, is walking away from a world he says is calcified, self-reverential and a hostage to rich collectors who have no respect for what they are doing.

“They’re in the hedge fund business, so they drop their windfall profits into art. It’s just not serious,” he told the Observer. “Art editors and critics – people like me – have become a courtier class. All we do is wander around the palace and advise very rich people. It’s not worth my time.” …

Hickey is adamant he wants out of the business. “What can I tell you? It’s nasty and it’s stupid. I’m an intellectual and I don’t care if I’m not invited to the party. I quit.”

Hickey is only the highest-profile member of a pretty large group: people who are sick of playing bit parts in a game which has become entirely about money and ego, with the beauty and power of art having become just another commodity to be bought and sold. Art critic Jerry Saltz is another:

I still can’t stand it. How a handful of very very rich people with penises likes buying the work of a handful of artists with penises for very very high prices in public, in front of other people with penises and some very tall thin blond people with great shoes and no penises. Really.

The doyenne of art-market reporters, Sarah Thornton, has quit writing about the economics of art. She says there are a hundred reasons for doing so, including the fact that “tightknit cabals of dealers and speculative collectors count on the fact that you will report record prices without being able to reveal the collusion behind how they were achieved”, and that “it implies that money is the most important thing about art.”

Charlie Finch, too, smells the irrelevance of a world which has become irredeemably decadent in all the worst meanings of the word — to the point, this summer, at which he convinced himself that even the plutocrats would notice, and that the art market would be crashing hard, right about now. Obviously, that didn’t happen: it’s almost impossible to underestimate the obliviousness of the art-collecting elite, who are of course constantly surrounded by precisely the kind of courtiers — consultants, gallerists, even artists — who constantly tell them how perspicacious and important they are. Look no further than former commodity broker Jeff Koons, whose Tulips just sold for $33,682,500 at Christie’s: the last time I saw him he was in Davos, palling around with a Ukrainian oligarch, and generally solidifying his reputation among the people who really matter. Insofar, of course, that the people who really matter are the people you want to continue to funnel millions of dollars in your direction.

No, Charlie, the art market oligopoly system isn’t going anywhere: if anything, it’s more entrenched than ever. But the people without millions of dollars, the people who try to talk about art but find all conversations ultimately being about money — those people are, finally, getting fed up.

There’s long been a disconnect between critical acclaim and high prices, but so long as the art market pumped money into the broader art ecosystem, no one really minded that. Rather, what seems to have changed is that art — art itself, divorced from commerce — has been drowned in the flood of money. Even the most highbrow museums, these days, only devote major shows to artists who have proved themselves winners in the great game of selling to plutocrats.

This critique, of course, is not a new one, and the Occupy Museums website puts it well:

Museums must be held accountable to the public. They help create our historical narratives and common symbols. They wield enormous power within our culture and over the entire art market. We occupy museums because museums have failed us. Like our government, which no longer represents the people, museums have sold out to the highest bidder.

What’s new, I think, is the way in which such sentiments have started infecting much of the public face of the art world. Not everywhere, to be sure. Where there are markets, there will always be cheerleaders and outlets like Art Market Monitor serve the auction houses in much the same way that CNBC serves the NYSE. But now we have Jerry Saltz half-seriously proposing that all art just be sold at a flat price, and we have Sarah Thornton complaining about how tax evasion has become endemic in the market, and we have Larry Gagosian, in his latest court deposition, squirming when asked how a painting which was consigned to a New York gallery, and which was sold to a US resident, somehow managed to get sold out of London. How did the London gallery manage to acquire the work? “I don’t know the answer to that,” replies Gagosian.

Or to put it another way, the art market has stopped being a source of fascination and crazy numbers, and has started to be a source of sheer disgust. The auction records will probably continue to fall: the small group of ultra-high-end art collectors cannot easily be chastened. But I’m beginning to see the stirrings of something else: a more supportive and democratic art world, taken seriously by respected gatekeepers, which increasingly views the twice-yearly shenanigans at Sotheby’s and Christie’s as an obscene sideshow rather than as a true gauge of value. The shiny art selling for tens of millions of dollars is so dumb, and the caricatures who would emulate its success are so debased, that a lot of really talented artists and critics and curators and even collectors don’t even want in any more.

If you look back and forth between art collectors and rapacious venture capitalists, you rapidly come to the conclusion that if you compare the two groups, the art collectors come out so much worse. They’re similar in many ways: you have the “angel” early-stage investors who go bargain-shopping among the unknowns, all the way through to the big-money late-stage investors who make a fortune by investing in established names. And of course you have the majority of investors who don’t actually make any money at all. But at least there’s something honest about the VCs, and at least you can say that they sometimes create value.

The world of high-end art collectors, by contrast, has reached a level of obscenity that the art world more generally can no longer ignore. It’s been clear to the more politically-minded for a while, but now we’re seeing the mainstreaming of attitudes which used to be found only on the far left. Enough of living in a world where an artwork without resale value is worthless. Enough of feeling jealous when some idiot starts selling for ridiculous sums. Enough of a world where the levels of inequality make Nigeria seem positively egalitarian. Yes, artists need to make money, and yes, big collectors shower ridiculous sums onto the art world. But that money isn’t trickling down, and it certainly isn’t respectable. Here’s Thornton:

I have no problem with rich people. (Some of my best friends are high net worth individuals!) But amongst the biggest spenders in the art market right now are people who have made their money in non-democracies with horrendous human rights records. Their expertise in rising to the top of a corrupt system gives punch to the term “filthy lucre.”

Remember, this is no bedraggled Occupy activist writing these words; this is Sarah Thornton, who spent an entire chapter of her art-world book swimming laps at the Hotel Cipriani in Venice. Similarly, Dave Hickey was an art dealer himself, once, and has devoted his entire career to helping young artists become commercially successful. These people made their peace with the art market decades ago — but now, they are saying, it has gone too far.

One of the reasons why auctions attract so much fascination is that they’re pretty much the only place where you can see millionaires and billionaires competing, in real time, to see who can spend the most money on a given object. It’s quite a spectacle — but it has very little to do with art. Or at least, it has very little to do with whatever it is that most art lovers love. It’s fine to commercialize art, to sell it, to make money off it. Indeed, I wish that many more fine artists could do so. But let’s do so on a human scale. Because today’s art market is so much less than that.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
15 comments so far

Short Felix Salmon: Gresham’s Law remains true.

Posted by klhoughton | Report as abusive

Indeed, “it has very little to do with art. Or at least, it has very little to do with whatever it is that most art lovers love.” It has to do with something else entirely. It’s not “the beauty and power of art having become just another commodity to be bought and sold”; the people to whom you’re referring aren’t buying “the beauty and power of art”, they’re buying status tokens.

As such, to some degree, I wonder whether smokers in prison felt this way about non-smokers’ caches of cigarettes going unused. That they were useful to the smokers for one purpose provided the means by which they acquired their use to non-smokers. While the use of cigarettes (or gold) as currency didn’t affect the kind or quality of cigarettes (or gold) being produced, it probably reduced the quantity available to the people who wanted them for their original purpose. (Indeed, if cigarette use as currency had been more pervasive outside of prison, as klhoughton might note, presumably low quality cigarettes would have driven out the high-quality ones, at least for the purpose of use as currency.)

Perhaps what’s needed, then, is some fiat currency of status. Have any of the art dealers acquired sufficient stature to simply declare some other sort of item to be status-giving? It should be scarce, and it might be helpful if different units are not perfectly fungible, and we all need to pretend to believe in it.

Posted by dWj | Report as abusive

Interesting that “Tulips” has fetched the record price. Art objects are now forming an asset bubble that resembles that of actual tulips in the early 17th century. There is a limited supply of Old Masters but nothing to stop anyone from supplying as many pop-art concoctions as needed. When will the bubble pop?

Posted by ytwod3621 | Report as abusive

IMO, the problem is that the medium of traditional painted art has lost a lot of social relevance. With the advent of so many communication and media technologies, I don’t think that painted art has nearly the gravitas that it used to, at least to the common person. It used to be a conveyance of politics, religion, and emotion. Now we have radio, television, and the internet for that.

As a child growing up, the only real and conscious association I had with paintings was how valuable they were considered. My simple idea of art was “Mona Lisa = $$$” and the only reason I’d ever care to actually see it up close is to marvel at the fact that I was standing next to something so valuable. So I think the monopolization of art is less about how it was commandeered by the rich and more about how the rest of the world cares much less and the rich haven’t realized it yet.

Posted by spectre855 | Report as abusive

I’m wondering how much of this was caused by the Getty Museum.

Before J. Paul Getty died, it was more of a tax dodge for his private collection, opened the minimum number of days a year to qualify as tax exempt, etc. (I went there in the mid 1970s)

After he died, and he left it an enormous bequest with the condition that the money (IIRC the income) from the bequest be spent on art purchases only, it created a lot of inflation in the art market, which brought in speculators.

I do recall reading an interview with a museum curator in the early 1980s where he was seriously honked off about the effect of the Getty museum on the art market.

Posted by Matthew_Saroff | Report as abusive

Why do people collect anything? Because it intrigues them. What’s the difference between the dorks that stand in line all day to get a Pujols autograph and the nasty new rich who ruined your idyllic art market. Either nut up or sit with the spectators ..

Posted by Woltmann | Report as abusive

This is just another manifestation of the lopsided distribution of income. There are too many people with more money than they can possibly spend, and it’s compounded by the fact that many of these same people only strive to make money for the sake of making money. Add in their egos, and you have three powerful forces driving this market.

When we have a tax system that doesn’t enable and encourage hoarding, the distribution of income will be broader, and bubbles like this will have a harder time getting inflated.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

“How a handful of very very rich people with penises likes buying the work of a handful of artists with penises for very very high prices in public, in front of other people with penises”

Hasn’t this been true for most of the history of art? Except, I suppose, the money wasn’t always handed over in public.

Posted by Moopheus | Report as abusive

Ironic that the originals are increasingly expensive at the same time that high-quality reproductions are increasingly available and cheap.

If art is about producing and viewing images of beauty and power, then art is cheaper than ever before. If art is about the symbolism of owning a unique artifact, then only the original counts.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

There is something pharaonic about this, dead art for entombed üober rich.
The great art of ancient Egypt not with standing.

Posted by tahers | Report as abusive

“Short Felix Salmon: Gresham’s Law remains true.” (KLH, first post)

Yep, damn near sad enough to make a grown man cry.

Posted by MrRFox | Report as abusive

Google “Berenson Duveen” — it’s all there a hundred years ago. Well recapped in a New Yorker article, 8 Oct 2012.

Posted by montedavis | Report as abusive

To whom it may concern!
I gave my comment, but it was not published?
Please explian.
Thank you
Kmentemt

That is what I wrote:

All very true, but how to find a way out of this kind of commercialization?

My answer is, that only art can free itself of greedy grip of the market by using the rules and elements of the market as part of its artistic creation process. In other words: the art work itself should determine the financial value and not the artist, the gallery or the ups and downs of the art market!

That way the price and the pricing will become an important and essential experience of the art, part of the aesthetic experience! That way art will regain its freedom from the market!

Posted by Kmentemt | Report as abusive

“Money is ruining the fashion industry!”

Galleries are luxury boutiques and always have been. Art objects are commodities, one of a kind or limited edition. The work you would defend, and Thornton does defend, is even less interesting than the work the market loves; that doesn’t mean any of it will last. That a subset of the makers of luxury commodities is bothered now by the behavior of the rich shows only how little relevance their work has for the broader culture.

Novels are art; music is art; films are art. But this isn’t about art it’s about “fine art” and fine art has devolved into fashion and high style because expensive objects no long carry the cultural weight they once did. Michelangelo carved tombs for oligarchs and painted billboards for the Pope, but Shakespeare wrote plays for both the aristocracy and the masses. Billionaires now make money selling books movies and media, but if their readership were made up only of their friends they’d go broke.

What other market but the art market would people claim the right to howl in moral indignation that that no one is buying their wares. And you’re a goddamn finance writer!

Posted by Juan1 | Report as abusive

One point Salmon alludes to is that beauty is no longer considered necessary in art. Fine draftsmanship, skill in applying paint to canvas in a beautiful manner, with a subject that might be sublime or quotidian, but none the less pleasing to the eye, is no longer considered worthy of respect in the rarified world of the avant-garde and its rapacious collectors. It’s time to bring back artisitc talent to the artworld, and leave the performance artists and the non-art of those like Jeff Koons behind.

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/