From: illovich (illovich@home.com)
Date: 02/27/02-04:06:29 PM Z
>I lost track of who wrote:
>
> > >> in general the real problem (IMHO) with the established system of art
>> >> patronage is that it still hasn't evolved much from the court system,
>> >> and depends entirely too much on the whims an tastes of an obscure
>> > > and out of touch plutocracy. >>
>
>then I wrote:
>
> > >Out of touch with whom? Which "plutocracy"? The throngs at pier today
> > >suggest thriving market, much in touch. Or "markets." There are genres all
> > >over the place.
Ok, I'll bite: what pier? the only pier I ever see is filled with
dock workers unloading coffee beans and such from boats. Do you mean
the pier in New York?
There are genres all over the place? Somebody better sweep em up!
>Then illovich wrote:
>
>> I was referring more to the "big time" of coffee table books and
>> museums than local art markets, which I assume have a bit more
> > freedom...
>
>So I note the obvious: shows like this "Armory show" in NYC with 100s of
>dealers from NYC, Paris, Amsterdam, London, Vienna, Sweden, Italy,
>Belgium, Japan, wherever... are hardly "local art market."
...I need to confess ignorance to the current state of the Armory
show. I don't know what you were answering by bringing it up...is the
armory show "big time?" or an example of "more freedom" or both?
What made it obvious?
>Also, "coffee table books" are uncertain marker of "big time," being
>often (and easily, if not usually) paid for or subsidized by artist or
>gallery.
Ok. I can readily admit that is possibly true... although it seems
like a lot of money either way (judging from what I know of the price
of printing), so it still seems sort of "big time" to me (i.e. if I
or someone else is willing to sink the amount of money needed into a
book of my work...)
>Not to mention that this particular show was crawling with curators, from
>MoMA on down.
>
>What were they looking for? NOT the famous heavies you imagine in the
>coffee-table books, whom they know & possess. They're looking for fresh
>talent, new ideas.
Exactly. But who are they that were looking? They are the dealers who
make a living selling art to the wealthy, i.e. the plutocracy that I
referred to. I think the point I was driving at by that comment,
originally brought up by the Dave Barry post and ensuing ranting and
raving, is that they are the folks who ultimately decide who gets
into the Saatchi collections or is "inducted" into museum fame.
I wasn't talking about a plutocracy of artists or curators, but
rather a plutocracy that runs the art world and also happens to run
so-called "big business" and several well known western governments,
all by means of their lucky (or criminal, depending on your politics)
control of the great majority of the world's wealth.
I recall a criticism of the "Sensation" show being not that it was
full of offensive art, but that it was a show that was touring public
museums (at least in NYC, I think), being shown and publicized with
public money, and all for the eventual purpose of raising the value
of the collection, which all happened to be owned by Saatchi. (I'm
not recalling Giuliani's crit, but rather the one he latched onto in
catholic desperation)
And that is what I meant by "local" (i.e. not "connected") art
markets having more freedom. Or at least more diversity. or something.
>There are trends and styles and movements, but "plutocracy" is fantasy.
>That they are "out of touch" is also fantasy, or sour grapes, or wishful
>thinking... Any one of us should be so in touch.
No kidding! I wish I was that in or out of touch. What I meant by
"out of touch" was that the rich are far removed from the everyday
life of the common person, but because they are what the art world
caters to (artists do like to sell their work, after all), they
essentially define what is going on in art at any given time.
Tsk tsk, nasty nasty. Fantasy indeed.
Of course, then I think: when I go around to the art galleries here
in Philly, most of what I see is unfulfilling, or as my friend Scott
calls it "bad surrealism." So maybe it's good to have a few
gatekeepers, because I can usually appreciate what's in the PMOA
(Phila Museum of Art), even if they don't have many photographs.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST