From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/27/02-11:28:54 PM Z
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, illovich wrote:
> 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?
Mr. I, I think you already know what you think, and aren't interested in
outside info. I described the "Armory show" on the piers 3 times while you
called it "local market." Now I'm saving my time to learn fractal so won't
repeat. However there's a fair description and explanation in NY Times
Friday, Feb 22. One article in particular has the pull quote, "Couldn't
make it all over the globe? Try a trip to two piers."
> ...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?
If you have my previous e-mails on the topic, read them as if you didn't
already know all the answers. This may make you less ignorant.
> >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...)
In this you're also being, to be polite, subjective. You can make a very
nice book for $10,000, earned back in sales of the art. In fact I'd say
precious few "coffee table books" get printed without a grant or subsidy
of some kind.
> >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
You're STILL not paying attention. I said CURATORS. The dealers sell at
all price levels and they were doing the show. In fact I remember some
rather charming drawings with pencilled price tags from $240 to $350.
> 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.
Again you know too much that aint so. Saatchi scouts offbeat shows, often
student shows. His purchase is often the very first.
> 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.
Ah, so the Bushies like art that Saatchi likes? Kenneth Lay goes to
Armory shows? I'm not allowed to say you're .... well a few terms from
DSM 4R come to mind, but this sounds more like the homeless fellow
talking to his finger on the street than someone with a knowledge of
inner workings of art wheeling & dealing.
> 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)
I recall a criticism that Rudy Giuliani was controlled by a chip planted
in his brain by aliens. You're not the only one puts 1 & 3 & 2 & a banana
together and thinks he's clinching an argument, but that's such a garbled
version of events & effects it's beyond even my brilliant powers to parse
it.
> And that is what I meant by "local" (i.e. not "connected") art
> markets having more freedom. Or at least more diversity. or something.
Again, since you know everything already, I won't address this, except to
note that in my experience "local" is more parochial than diverse, more
controlled by local satraps than any big freewheeling show could possibly
be.
> 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.
Wrong again. Do you ever read or even look at an art magazine, eg Artforum
or Art in America ? The diversity is overwhelming, almost dizzying. I'll
add that I know a few rich people and their taste in art is as varied as
yours and mine. Did I say that the greatest most valuable art collections
in our culture were, with few exceptions, gathered by "rich people"? Of
exquisite taste and sensibility. Often starting with unknowns. That by the
way was the big stink when Scull sold a Rauschenberg he'd picked up cheap
& early for lots more.
> 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.
So what's your point after all? That the people who made those collections
and shows at the PMoA were impoverished and unconnected?
The END !
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST