From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/12/02-01:42:00 AM Z
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jack Fulton wrote:
> This might be way beyond this topic, but I found Bruce's work to be
> intellectually and artistically challenging while being authentic and damned
> smart. Now, he is recognized as one of the influential artists of the past
> 25 years . . in the world. I have zero idea what his stuff we have is worth
> and do not care because our love of it and the long friendship is really
> what matters. We still contemplate it. It only now happens to have the
> cachet of name . .
> Jack Fulton
>
> > Me? The print that I like the best would be the one that would end up in my
> > collection. Art is to enjoyed, contemplated and so forth. Buying because it
> > has a big name attached is called speculation. Or to try and impress your
> > friends with your great taste in art.
> >
> > Joe Portale
In the days when we were having art talk fever, the dealers on panels
sometimes were frank enough (or the setting casual enough) to describe how
the customer would fall in love with an artwork, but then the first
question out of their mouth would be "will it increase in value." Like the
dealer could tell that (or would). Something like 85% of all art goes for
its highest price at first sale (at least according to London's Art
paper), but the auctions of the 60s & soaring prices of ab ex conditioned
public to think in terms of coining gold, or at least an *investment.*
The irony is that they're likely to lose twice -- maybe passing on art
they truly love in favor of the "investment"... that then isn't. The
dealers found it very frustrating, and were torn -- between making
promises they knew were meaningless, and losing the sale.
On the other hand, however -- art has lost so many of the functions it
once had (record, narrative, education, worship, etc.), at least it
remains commodity !
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST