In this post I would like to ask the over-arching question, how long does an artist stay relevant and why? Also, how do certain artists get deemed valuable while other artists with similar skills get cast out? What compels patrons to support certain artists’ careers and not others? What does in vogue mean to you and can an artist or a work of art go in and out of vogue? Lastly, how is technology and idea of art-flipping changing the landscape of collecting art and the art market? *Watch the clips above and let's get this discussion going.
20 Comments
Joseph Contreras
3/13/2017 04:00:08 pm
Nice and quick. Informative with good examples. As for myself I don't want to play this game and even if I did I would probably be terrible at it.
Reply
Tomory Dodge
3/19/2017 04:47:03 pm
Hi Josh! Nice site. Informative videos. 👍
Reply
3/19/2017 06:12:11 pm
The last sentence of the first video about never seeing a sistene chapel anytime soon if the art market continues to reign supreme is untrue. Massive patronage and investment is the only way that kind of work gets made - and there's a place for that kind of work in society - clearly. I'm interested in that kind of work - huge public projects. I'm also interested in the quirky individual and often private work of artists who are not part of the market or only barely part of it. Artist who have too a lot of demand and a lot of exposure really become a different kind of artist. I think both have merit.
Reply
3/19/2017 06:16:21 pm
ps I'm not interested in the market. I'm really just interested in the work. This stuff makes me ill. Whatever's trendy at the time, who cares - you know - as an artist I don't really care about whether or not some collector does or doesn't like the work of an artist who's work I like. I mean, I do have some paintings I could sell if I get under dire straights. So as an artist, it's good to do a lot of trading. I always trade just because I love something. Listening to the second video, talk of the internet and all that - ugh. Hard to listen to.
Reply
Laurie Nye
3/19/2017 06:29:20 pm
Great videos but also difficult to watch as an under represented artist!
Reply
Kristin Calabrese
3/19/2017 08:23:07 pm
Yes very high pressure for kids right out of school - especially the naive ones like most of us were. I think there's artschool students with investor/banker type parents though that think of artschool as a means to the market - I'm sure of it actually.
Reply
HM
3/19/2017 07:50:03 pm
I wonder if there is way to keep patrons better informed of their impact. I think the art world can kind of be an echo chamber and while some monied collectors may be away of their power, others are less thoughtful about the larger implications, and might change their patterns if they were.
Reply
Kristin Calabrese
3/19/2017 08:24:30 pm
I wish collectors had to take some studio art classes before being allowed to collect art, really. I don't think it would be easy for them to be informed of their effect - they probably love getting to say what's relevant with their dollars.
Reply
Mary Anna Pomonis
3/20/2017 10:20:44 am
I think most successful artists (via the art market model you are implying) are charismatics and or are able to socialize well with the 1percent or they are teachers and they enter a different market model which is institutional and not included in the videos you have chosen. Artists as sited in the videos enter a market system based on either an intellectual culling from elite private institutions and friendships. The more you scratch the surface the more being at the right party with the right friends is really the determining factor for success in this market driven system. What irks me is that museum don't counter this model enough because the model feeds into the museum in order to help it raise money. I think as public institutions museums have an obligation to even the playing field for people who have been marginalized or locked out of the market because of their lack of access to the private clubs that keep the one percent separate from he rest of the population. Public university art museums have a unique ability to level the playing field and provide venues for people traditionally locked out of the power structure, its hard to imagine the career of conceptual artists such as Ann Hamilton or culturally significant graphic artists such as Emory Douglas without institutional support. What shocks me is that the slower harder career building that happens at public universities and through academic discourse hasn't surpassed the flash and cash of a character like Simchowitz. The fact that a shitty painter like George Condo is probably more famous than Ann Hamilton actually makes me slightly ill. It is like the Donald Trumps of the art world have taken over.
Reply
3/21/2017 03:10:23 pm
"as public institutions, museums have an obligation to even the playing field for people who have been marginalized or locked out of the market because of their lack of access to the private clubs that keep the one percent separate from the rest of the population."
Reply
I have always been fascinated by this in art history. I find the particular cases of Gerhard Richter, Carolee Schneeman, Chris Burden and Ushio Shinohara fascinating, as they have continued to remain relevant in the art world, with some shifting styles to "keep up" and some remaining "tried and true" with their unique brand and style. Very good videos too! Thumbs up!
Reply
Sophie
3/22/2017 08:14:35 am
There are many different paths to becoming a blue-chip artist, and the history of contemporary art has shown that the most formulaic answer to the question, “how long does an artist stay relevant and why?” is that if the ‘Castelli model’ has been utilized to sell the artists work, they will more likely have a longer period of relevance than those who do not. ‘Who the work is sold to matters more than how much it sells for,’ means that gaining the attention of collectors with work that enters museum collections and is shown on loan with institutions elevates a new artistic purchase to the level of other work in that collection. Artists who are deemed valuable vs. those who are ‘cast out’ are often those who have relationships to people who can collect and show their work while they are still considered emerging artists. The language of ‘casting out’ seems backwards here, however, because rather than being cast out of a group of artists who are marketed, there are in reality those who are /accepted/ into the group of those who are marketed from the entire body of people making work. Those who already have relationships with older collectors, who know people with money and influence, and who have access to financial support while they make bodies of work that are not (yet) market-viable are at a great advantage to those who do not have these modes of access. Creating this relevance can also be achieved though networking, which is an enormous part of the work that many artists hoping to break into the market do outside of their studio practice.
Reply
Brittany Nicole
3/22/2017 09:04:02 am
Applicable and relevant within the art market and beyond. Very interesting. It is another example of how sheeple do, like, and buy what they are told. At this point we wonder if it's possible to know the difference between us and them.
Reply
Kristin Calabrese
3/22/2017 09:10:21 am
Good point!
Reply
Rob Lundquist
3/23/2017 08:07:32 pm
The commodification of art, as shown through these videos, has brought a gross hierarchy of relationships. It just seems disturbing that an artist could think of themselves, at the some point in their career, as business people first and an artist second, thus creating a stronger dialogue with patrons and gallerists than with other artists. I am so foreign to this world but watching these videos makes me think about what is deserving of exposure and what is being "swept under the rug." It seems like it's a "dog eat dog" art world. I feel for artists who have to endure through this jungle while keeping their integrity.
Reply
Hi Josh,
Reply
I love this! How do artist stay relevant? Why do some get casted out and some being constantly brought up and also taught in school? Art is very subjective and if you can make an impact on the world and make people notice you, whether it is good or bad, then people will remember you. Good or bad publicity is still publicity.
Reply
Brianna
5/6/2017 02:37:38 pm
It has always been fascinating to me what has been controlled and presented to us as the epitome of art by the wealthy. I think with the presence of social media it has become a little more apparent to people what the public actually finds appealing rather than what we are told we find appealing by the wealthy. I think social media has been a great way to get the voice of the public heard especially in the realm of politics and art.
Reply
Joe Dubber
5/6/2017 09:05:49 pm
I feel that a highly valued artist generally needs to make shmoozing with the right people a full time job. From this line of reasoning, I cannot help but raise more questions. How does their work suffer as a result of the time spent on their social efforts? Will they have the time to maintain normal friendships and relationships with the full-time responsibilities of art making, working to make ends meet, and networking?
Reply
5/8/2017 06:22:53 pm
I think it's sad how much control capitalism has on art. I feel like your art is only seen as valuable so long as some corporate or company can make money off it. Sadly, money talks and the more money you have the more control you would have in its production and exposure to the public which in turn will make or break you as a relevant artist.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AKA Josh StoneEach one, Teach one. ArchivesCategories |