Comments on: Larry Gagosian’s feet of clay A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Juan1 Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:22:52 +0000 Saatchi and Saatchi faced a crisis after all the expansion meant that it handled accounts for both Coke and Pepsi. Art and advertising are boutique businesses. Conglomerates can operate multiple boutiques and brands only as long as they’re diversified, but also a boutique cannot become a conglomerate without losing it’s claim to the “charm” of being a boutique.

As David Zwirner told me 20 years ago, there’s not much difference between art and fashion anymore. I suppose I should have left that as a blind item, but I’m really sick of the cant. High art and high fashion are facing the same crisis; entertainment and clothing are doing fine. If Koons is leaving Gagosian it’s because he wants the comparative safety of the smaller art business. Schnabel to his credit seems to have chosen entertainment (his paintings are now as bad as Matthew Barney’s films). Salle, Longo and Cindy Sherman made films too, all forgotten. But the daughter of two minor art stars of their generation is now an “art house” favorite on cable. HBO is boutique entertainment, a different economic model than the art world. The middle class is more intellectually serious than the rich but moralizing art critics lambaste the new generation of oligarchs for not upholding the standards of the houses of the Medici and the Sforza.

You quote Gopnik: “The market for art is unlike any other, because it’s built on some notion of true, underlying value” I come from a background in the aristocratic arts, but I’m a communist. Go figure. You’re not defending art you’re defending the church.

I’l ask again: Is Jackson Pollock more important than Alfred Hitchcock?
And I’ll answer: No.

I’ll take art where I can get it, not where it’s supposed to be,

By: Chris08 Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:17:12 +0000 The mania today, and perhaps since the Renaissance, for visual art is a post mediaeval phenomenon. Before the Renaissance the money and zest for collecting went for religious relics such as saints’ bones, piece of the True Cross, etc., etc. Now of course these relics exist mainly in dark and dingy cathedrals where they sit unvisited and ignored, basically worthless. One wonders what will happen to modern art. Something else surely will supplant it in time.

By: CDodge Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:59:13 +0000 Seems unlikely that Prince is specifically behind the Dylan show…at least Greg Allen’s argument feels pretty flat (and has some major holes). Sure, Prince probably advised Dylan, but Dylan had to at least be complicit with letting the gallery use his name (and considering Prince’s career, the whole point of his art is that the namke on the art is supposed to be read as the “author”). And Dylan got a lot of grief about the last round of photo/paintings, so maybe he thought he needed help. Dylan’s never been much of a visual artist…the whole thing smacks of a poorly conceived afterthought to try to justify a bad art show from a good musician. Allen is linked to Prince…the real sleight of hand here would be making people believe that bad art produced by a bad “traditional” artist is a better way to rationalize bad art from Dylan. Either way, the work stinks. Who cares who made it? Bad either way. Even a juicy (though simple-minded) conspiracy theory doesn’t somehow make the work any better or less lame.