(The original impetus for this post was generated from a reader comment that included a reference to art and elitism. Seems to fit. Thanks for getting my brain to run with this. You know who you are ;)
I don't normally read blogs (excepting, of course, those by my classmates), but I've recently started reading the CultureGrrl blog by journalist and lecturer Lee Rosenbaum.
We've heard from Peter several times about what makes an artist a commercial success is their connection to an agent or art dealer who pushes their work to become perceived as important to the cultural narrative.
So if an artist's worth is determined by artificial market forces and the power of an individual or entity who profits directly from that cultural interpretation, do the people who collect artwork remain immune to these forces?
Here's an excerpt-within-an-excerpt from Rosenbaum's post on the subject as it relates to Christie's auction house's media blast for the sale of a particular sculptural work, Jeff Koons' "Balloon Dog (Orange)". The original comments are from Christie's, while the added bits are her commentary:
The ‘Balloon Dog’ is the Holy Grail [!?!] for collectors and foundations. In private hands, the work has always communicated the prominence and stature of its owner [emphasis added]. Like Andy Warhol’s portrait of Marilyn, which influenced Koons’ choice of the orange metallic color for ‘Balloon Dog,’ it is the ultimate masterpiece, instantly recognizable to the art world and public alike. To own this work immediately positions the buyer alongside the very top collectors in the world and transforms a collection to an unparalleled level of greatness” [or conspicuous consumption?].
Here's the link to her entire post. It's **amazing** and, frankly, a little scary. Is this the new point of art collecting?
No comments:
Post a Comment