Look At the New York Times Article, Art Shivers in the Recession!
Finally, it seems as if the art world is realizing there has been a recession in the general world. It is refreshing to see that the upper crust of society is realizing that something has happened to the rest of the world, and that maybe they should not be buying millions of dollars worth of art.
Unfortunately this is not the case. In the auction houses, there was not a lack of buyers, but rather a lack of sellers. Some of the paintings that were sold went for exorbitant amounts because of the lack of competition. People who own old work masterpieces are unwilling to sell them in this economy. Instead, the lesser known artists, or second tier old world painters are the ones that were on the auction block in Sotheby and Christie’s auction houses.
Quoting from the article “Such blatant overestimation was not due to some inexplicable hubris on the experts’ part. It merely reflects the desperate efforts made by auction house departmental heads to entice consignors by complying with their every wish, however unrealistic.”
The art world market seems to be shriveling in these tough economic times, but whether this is a good or bad thing is yet to be determined. If the art world auction markets die down, art will not be circulating and it may be difficult to ever see some of the great works because they will be in a vault in a wealth man’s house. On the other hand, it may be a wakeup call to the wealthy population that something is happening in the world, and you cannot be a recluse and not help out.
It is a telling sign that people do not want to part with their work. As we have discussed in class multiple times, Occupy Wall Street and other movements like that are reacting to something. The wealthy are not as willing to part with their riches and would rather keep them locked up in their vaults. This may lead to the end of the auction house as we know it.
Good job with connecting this post to Occupy Wall Street; I never thought before that the lack of sellers at art auctions could mean that the rich don’t want to part with their artworks if they won’t get the most money possible for them. Imagine protests breaking out demanding art collectors to sell their collections! We never know, it may happen.
At the same time, this can be doing a justice for the art world. These art collectors may just want to make sure that the art gets the value it deserves. If you’re passionate about a piece of art, you will defend its value and therefore won’t let it be sold short if you know it deserves more. But this of course brings us back to the age-old debate of what determines an art’s value? Why should an artwork sell for millions of dollars at a Christie’s auction? Does money ruin art?
Personally, I think this goes to show that it is best not to be involved in the buying/selling world of art at this time; the financial burden it causes isn’t worth it, and the nonsense of when to buy and sell it simply ruins the art’s intention to begin with.
Lauren, this is a beautiful opportunity to point out a striking parallel in the artistic and economic world: one that I would say “MARRIES THE TWO TOGETHER.” But that’s not anything I’ve shared before of course.
Humor my quick economics spiel as a start. The constant struggle between conservatives and liberals is HOW to stimulate the economy. The conservatives generally believe in the “trickle down” theory: when the wealthy get wealthier and receive more tax cuts, they’ll create more jobs. Liberals believe that the economy is best stimulated from the “bottom-up”: give the 99% more benefits and funding, because they buy goods and services, thus causing owners to hire more workers to produce more. When companies hire more, people make more money, people spend more money, etc.
Now, I think this is clearly the idea here in the art world as well. Is the art world fine, because the rich are still rich and they, after all, they fuel artists and the art world? Or do we need to help the struggling artists, so that more artists produce more and push more limits?
I think the answer is pretty clear in both: when the rich carry all the funding and no one else has the money to buy goods and services, the rich don’t need to hire anyone because they don’t need to produce more when nothing is being sold. In the art world, when the rich carry all the funding, they carry too much power, because they have the power to decide which artists will go into galleries. And with the average artist unable to survive on an artist’s nonexistent salary, there’s a lack of competition as you pointed out. I think it’s time we thought about this system of ours and what we can do to change it.
Although art donors and the wealthy are a great tool in the art world, I don’t believe they should be the only tool. I may sound like an extremist (that’s not the intention at all), but I just want to find a system that doesn’t rely completely on the wealthy snobs, because there are many middle class and poor snobs who are just as qualified to run galleries and choose what belongs in a museum.