Lowbrow Meets Highbrow

Issue of Juxtapoz Magazine
Cover art by Shepard Fairy

"A frog is either lowbrow or highbrow.

If you catch it, it's low. If you order it in a French restaurant, it's high."

-Unidentified chef, from Burkhard Bilger's Noodling for Flatheads

In 2007, commenting on the blog PaintersNYC, artist Kelli Williams observed that it's hard to be a Juxtapoz artist "in an ArtForum world." Juxtapoz is a popular magazine dedicated to showcasing contemporary "lowbrow art." It was founded by the artist Robert Williams in 1994. The "ArtForum world" of Kelli William's statement references the magazine of that name, but also the "high art" scene it covers, of which New York City, for the time being, remains an - if not the - epicenter. Until recently, the artwork featured in ArtForum was very different from that seen in the pages of Juxtapoz. Juxtapoz is representative of the Los Angeles art scene, and the U.S. west coast scene more generally, where the aesthetics of pop surrealism, folk art, post-graffiti, or street art are wholly embraced.

But artwork infused by Juxtapoz's colorful spirit is no longer uncommon in New York galleries. Andrew Schoultz, Tim Biskup, and Jeff Soto, talented west coast artists regularly lauded in the pages of Juxtapoz, today exhibit with the Morgan Lehman and Jonathan Levine galleries, and influential post-graffiti artist Barry "Twist" McGee is represented by the renowned Deitch Projects. Jonathan Levine makes plain his dedication to the post-graffiti aesthetic; his gallery's website states that its mission is to exhibit "work influenced by illustration, comic books, graffiti art and pop imagery." Perhaps it's no longer so hard, then, to be a Juxtapoz artist "in an ArtForum world"?

But, more importantly, does lowbrow art require the affirmation of the "high art" world - for easy contrast, let's call it highbrow art - in order to be considered mainstream or legitimate? If so, what exactly is the cultural significance of highbrow art to the world at large?


Jeff Soto
"Purple Heart"
2007
Acrylic on wood
12 x 12 inches
The commercial success of books like Beautiful Losers: Contemporary Art and Street Culture and Wall and Piece, the latest offering from the infamous British artist, Banksy, suggest that pop surrealism, post-graffiti, and street art succeed in connecting with the multitudes. On the other hand, it's an uncontroversial fact that highbrow art generally doesn't move the masses (with the exception of its remarkable ability to offend the religious sensibilities of the Christian Right and certain mayors). But highbrow art doesn't simply fail to connect with the general population; the fact is, most folks sneer at, mistrust, or resent ArtForum's world.

Perhaps because they feel beleaguered by popular tastes, many players in the world of highbrow art - artists, gallerists, critics, and curators alike - reject the influx of pop surrealism and post-graffiti flavor. But their objections will inevitably prove inconsequential; as the Borg of "Star Trek" put it, "resistance is futile." Even if some of the more esoteric subcultures of the Juxtapoz arena - Tiki culture, for example - are unlikely to find a toehold in the world of "high art," the graphic influences common to post-graffiti work already inform the paintings of contemporary art world darlings like Dana Schutz, Marcel Dzama, Trenton Doyle Hancock, Ryan McGuinness, Lisa Yuskavage, Yoshitomo Nara, and Jules de Balincourt. (In fact, Dzama and McGuinness have been featured in Juxtapoz; it won't be long before other celebrated highbrow artists are, too. One wonders if the lowbrow label will be applicable for much longer.) And then there are artists like Judith Schaechter, whose stained glass works were lauded in the pages of Juxtapoz years before her work hung in the Whitney Museum or before she received Guggenheim and National Endowment for the Arts Fellowships.


Judith Schaechter
"Hyena Snake Comet"
2004-2008
Stained glass
30 x 33 inches
Much of the highbrow resistance to pop surrealism and post-graffiti is rooted in the self-identified elites' distrust of populism. Comic books and strips are intended for mass consumption, but graffiti is unquestionably the most populist of the lowbrow tributaries. No art form has fewer barriers to entry; all you need is a can of spray paint and a little chutzpah. Ask someone knowledgeable about the subject to relate the history of modern graffiti, and you'll likely hear an abridged version, one that begins in the 1970s, in and around New York City's Bronx River Houses, and runs parallel to the development of hip hop. City funding for arts and culture programs was pitifully low at the time, and enterprising teens looked for new ways to entertain and express themselves. As Lady Pink, an influential graffiti artist of the late 1970s and 1980s, explains, graffiti was the most available "forum for free speech."

Of course, the human urge to make marks predates the Bronx River Houses by millennia. Our ancestors depicted their quarry on cave walls and, more recently, citizens of ancient Rome scribbled their political opinions on market stalls (hence the word's etymology, from the Italian graffiare, meaning "to scratch or scribble.") But during the early days of modern graffiti's ascendancy, practitioners prioritized ego over observation or socio-political commentary. The pioneers of the 1970s and 1980s graffiti scenes in New York City and Philadelphia - Taki 183, StayHigh 149, Cat 161, and Cornbread, among others - were primarily known for their "tags," stylized monikers spray painted on walls and subway cars. They vied for renown by tagging as many surfaces as they could, and walls that were difficult to access had a special cache. The competitive behavior of these early graffiti "artists" might be best described as base scent marking, activity essentially indistinguishable from the industry of the bored high school student who scratches "(x) was here" on the wall of the bathroom stall. Fortunately, as more artists entered the nascent graffiti scene, such adolescent "battling" became insufficient impetus; soon, the egotistical tag evolved into something more colorful and complex. Artists added characters, often comic in nature, a result of their limited palettes and time frame, and, before long, these characters evolved into "pieces" (short for masterpieces). The best graffiti artists came to value style and artistry as much as placement.

The conceptual and social strengths of graffiti and street art are rooted in the artists' acceptance of temporality and his or her desire to engage the environment and citizenry directly. As Simon Hattenstone, a features writer for The Manchester Guardian, writes, "Since spotting my first few Banksies I have been desperately seeking out more. They make me smile and feel optimistic about the possibilities of shared dreams and common ownership." Insofar as it is truly democratic, the street artist's approach is fundamentally distinct from that of those who aspire to "high art" success. "Fine artists" are essentially aristocratic in inclination. They are the elites who operate within the context of "high art" institutions; their work is most often viewed in semi-sacred, unlived in spaces, by people who talk about the work in reverent whispers. Street art, by contrast, is viewed by everybody who happens past the artwork. But, today, as the post-graffiti movement sees many of its more celebrated artists entering the "high art" sphere, the populist flavoring of the culture is eroding.


Banksy
"Balloongirl"
Artwork on West Bank barrier between Israel and the West Bank
2005
Is the aesthetic melting pot a bad thing? The answer depends on your perspective, of course; personally, I'm all for it. Like many contemporary artists, I'm not alone in feeling that my artwork and aesthetic inclinations plant a standard somewhere between the poles of Juxtapoz and ArtForum. Just as I feel torn between my rural roots and the creative community and energy of city life, so too am I drawn to elements of both art orbits, east and west, highbrow and lowbrow. I live and work in New York, so I've cultivated an appreciation for the importance of conceptual heft. But I'm also an erstwhile subscriber to Juxtapoz who, in my youth, eagerly thumbed through the pages of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual, read fantasy novels and comic books, and honed my drawing chops by copying from comic strips. Perhaps I'm biased, then, but it seems that aesthetic commingling introduces hybrid vigor into otherwise "inbred" scenes.

Too many circles of the "high art" world are poisoned by intellectual pretension, obscurantism, and exclusivity. The ArtForum world is principally concerned with auction results and art historical significance. In east coast MFA programs, the mills of the contemporary "high art" world, a common question asked of students is, "Where does your work fit in the historical trajectory?" Indeed, at great cost to social legitimacy, the "high art" world has prioritized originality and artistic genealogy.

Much of the "lowbrow" scene, by contrast, is blighted by the artists' focus on disposable pop culture, their willingness to cozy up to the marketing machine, and their populist posturing. In an interview with Juxtapoz, one young artist said,

"When it comes right down to it, I draw the stuff I like, and people can take it all for whatever they want. I would say that 95 percent is liking big boobs and butts, the other five percent is brain farts that end up in a sketchbook that later ends up as a painting or whatever."

Although I wrote down this quotation without recording the artist's name, I do recall appreciating some of his graphic skill. Still, when I'm confronted with such a thoughtless statement, I can appreciate the animus that brooding, theory-oriented types have for lowbrow art. Where is the evidence of this young artist's vocational mindfulness, his rigorous passion, his poetic sensibility? Of course, his defenders would likely praise his candor, but, in truth, he's posturing as much as the bespectacled, black-clad fellow who insists in his jargon-laden artist statement that Jacques Derrida informs all of his output.


Marcel Dzama
"Untitled"
2005
Watercolor on paper
14 x 11 inches
Despite haughty sneers from individuals on both sides, it seems to me that the transition that so many post-graffiti artists are making, from the streets to the galleries, could (and should) help create a less sectarian art world. The selfish pretensions of the highbrow art world could be tempered by an influx of no-nonsense, illustrative exuberance, and the lowbrow art world could jettison some of their conceptual superficiality by taking the philosophical and moral obligations of their vocation more seriously. That is, in any case, my hope.

Image credits: Juxtapoz cover image ripped from Rotofugi.com;; Jeff Soto image ripped from the Jonathan Levine Gallery website; Judith Schaechter image ripped from the artist's website; Banksy image ripped from the Brian Sewell Art Directory; Marcel Dzama image ripped from David Zwirner website

(Note: This post appeared concurrently on the art blog, Hungry Hyaena.)

Bill Viola to receive Catalonia International Prize 2009

BILL VIOLA - Ocean Without a Shore, 2007 3-channel High Definition Video/Sound Installation Production stills Photo: Kira Perov

James Cohan Gallery has announced that artist Bill Viola has been awarded the 2009 Catalonia International Prize. The prize, which is also known as the Premi Internacional Catalunya, was awarded to Viola by the Catalonian government of Spain.

The Catalonia International Prize is an annual award that is granted to individuals who contribute to the development of scientific, cultural or human values around the world through their creative work. The prize has existed since 1989.

Bill Viola will receive the prize from the president of the Catalan Government during a ceremony scheduled for June 30th at the Palace of the Generalitat, in Barcelona. For more informatin visit, www.jamescohan.com or www.billviola.com.

When Art Dealers Go Bad: Run Ronnie Run!

Art dealer Ronald Coles at his Kenthurst gallery in 2004. Photo: Natasha Paes/Hills News

In February 2009 hundreds of complaints were filed in Australia concerning art dealer Ronald Coles. This was due to two key factors. First, Coles had orchestrated an art market scheme that involved selling forgeries that he claimed were original works by Norman Lindsay and other famous Australian artists. Apparently he had the fakes created in China. Second, Coles owed millions of dollars to his angry clients and allegedly had stolen authentic works of art as well from his cliental. The forgeries had ended up for sale at auction houses and other venues while the legitimate stolen works had been sold online.

Australian authorities raided the Ronald Coles Investment Gallery and Coles residence only to find a large collection of firearms and hundreds of stolen paintings-- some of which were valued at over $4 million at the time of the bust. Afterwards dozens of former clients discovered that works of art that they had entrusted to Coles had been sold on the internet while others found out that the works they had purchased from Coles were in fact fakes. Unfortunately, Ronald Coles was no where to be found-- he has been on the run since before the police raided his property.

It has since been revealed that Coles had been running his scheme as early as 1994. Rumors state that other professionals within the market were aware of Coles activity but were wary of exposing him out of fear that the market as a whole would be scrutinized. In other words, if those claims are true it would mean that other professionals kept silent while Coles established a national reputation for himself as a legitimate art dealer and broker.

The plot thickens-- Ronald Coles is currently running from more than just the law. Recent buzz claims that Coles vanished with over $1 million in cash that belonged to an under-the-table client-- an outlaw biker (bikie for the people down under) gang in Australia. Needless to say, the biker gang did not bother with a formal complaint to Australian authorities. Instead they intimidated Coles stepdaughter, Sage Carver, who also happens to be an art dealer.

Sage Carver claims that the gang told her that they want to take Ronald Coles for a “ride”. However, the name of the specific gang has yet to be released to the press-- though the story has been confirmed by press in Sydney under the condition of anonymity. Apparently members of the biker gang had shown up at a gallery opening hosted by Carver in order to find out where Coles had gone. The outlaw biker gang members left with five paintings after Carver was unable to provide them with information.

A senior member of the outlaw biker gang, under the condition of anonymity, informed the press that the gang had invested money in Coles operation and that the shamed art dealer owes millions to over a dozen dozen senior members of the gang. The outlaw stated that the biker gang has the resources and the manpower to find Ronald Coles before he is captured by law enforcement, stating that “one way or another“ his gang will get their investment back.

The senior member of the outlaw biker gang made it clear to the press that Ronald Coles can only run for so long. All I can say is that Coles had better keep running-- or do the smart thing and run to the nearest jail cell… though it might be wise for him to pay back a few of his clients first.
Link of Interest:

Bikies want to have a 'chat' about their $1m
www.smh.com.au/national/bikies-want-to-have-a-chat-about-their-1m-20090509-aykb.html?page=-1

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Downward Spiral: Confidence in Contemporary Indian Art drops 90%

Diamonds, 2007, Bindis on panel, 64.25 x 70.25 inches. By Bharti Kher

According to ArtTactic, a London based research company that examines the art market, the art market boom for contemporary Indian art may very well be over-- at least for now. ArtTactic’s confidence index states that art market confidence in contemporary Indian art has dropped by 90 percent since last October. ArtTactic’s data is based on a number of factors-- including a balance between pessimistic and optimistic art market professionals who respond to their surveys. The responses were offered by over 80 individuals-- ranging from Indian and international collectors, art dealers, art advisers, to auction house specialists.

The confidence for Indian art in general has dropped 63% in the same length of time. The report states that the market for Indian art in general may take anywhere between two and 10 years to recover due to the aftermath of a market that sent prices for Indian art souring in the last few years. In fact, just over a year ago prices for some Indian artists had doubled-- a rapid increase in what turned out to be a paper-tiger market. The founder of ArtTactic, Anders Petterson, has said, “people see there’s nothing to hold these prices up any more.”.

The current slump is largely due to the state of the economy and the financial crises that has swept the world-- another sign that the stability of the art market in general can shift rather quickly. The implications of the bubble-burst market for contemporary Indian art may end up being disastrous for western art dealers who invested heavily in Indian artist since 2006. Concerning the burst Petterson has stated, “Western galleries got involved with Indian art at a high price-point and now they’re stuck with it.”

Needless to say, there is some concern that younger contemporary Indian artists may end up in obscurity due to the fact that the high prices for their work is no longer valid within the current art market-- 10 years is a long time to wait for the art market to recover after having been introduced to rising success early on.

Young contemporary Indian artists are not alone. There has also been a downward spiral in the art market for contemporary Chinese art. Similar to the contemporary Indian art market many of the top selling Chinese artists were virtually unknown before the Chinese art market boom. Successful young contemporary artists from India and China reaped what quick fame and fortune offers to artists who dominate the global art market.

I suppose the lesson to be learned from this is that success can be fleeting-- these young artists have been caught in the downward spiral of the economically burdened art market. That said, the art market may recover just as fast as it crashed. If the global financial crises has taught us anything it is that the unexpected can happen.

Link of Interest:

www.arttactic.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Frieze Art Fair Exhibitor List 2009 (A-F)

The 2009 exhibitor list for Frieze Art Fair (www.friezeartfair.com) has been made public. According to the Frieze website-- details of Frieze Art Fair 2009, 15-18 October, have been announced by directors Amanda Sharp and Matthew Slotover. The site explains that a fresh and exciting addition for 2009 will be the first presentation of Frame, a new section within the fair dedicated to solo artist presentations. Frame will show young galleries from around the world that have been in existence for less than six years.

Frieze Art Fair takes place every October in Regent’s Park, London. The fair provides an environment to introduce and showcase new and established artists to visitors from around the world. Frieze Art Fair features more than 150 galleries from around the world, providing visitors with a unique opportunity to see and buy art by the world’s leading artists. The fair hosts an annual curatorial programme, presented by Frieze Foundation.

Clare Stephenson -- Analysis & Reflection, 2009, framed xerox and collage on paper, 62 x 47.5 x 4.2 cm -- Represented by Sorcha Dallas

Frieze Art Fair Exhibitor List 2009 (A-F)

Galería Juana de Aizpuru, Madrid -- www.juanadeaizpuru.com
Galería Helga de Alvear, Madrid -- www.helgadealvear.com
Andersen's contemporary, Copenhagen -- www.andersen-s.dk
Galerie Paul Andriesse, Amsterdam
The Approach, London -- www.theapproach.co.uk
Galerie Catherine Bastide, Brussels -- www.catherinebastide.com

Boers-Li Gallery, Beijing -- www.boersligallery.com
Marianne Boesky Gallery, New York -- www.marianneboeskygallery.com

Kaye Donachie -- Every mornin' our love is reborn, 2004, Oil on canvas, 24 5/8 x 35 3/8 inches -- Represented by Marianne Boesky Gallery

Galerie Isabella Bortolozzi, Berlin -- www.bortolozzi.com
The Breeder, Athens -- www.thebreedersystem.com
Broadway 1602, New York -- www.broadway1602.com
Gavin Brown's enterprise, New York -- www.gavinbrown.biz
Galerie Daniel Buchholz, Cologne -- www.galeriebuchholz.de
Luis Campaña, Berlin -- www.luiscampana.de
Galerie Gisela Capitain, Cologne -- www.galerie-capitain.com
Casa Triângulo, Sao Paulo
Sadie Coles HQ, London -- www.sadiecoles.com
COMA Centre for Opinions in Music and Art, Berlin -- www.coma-berlin.com

Stef Driesen--Untitled, 2008, Oil on linen, 70.875 H x 59 W inches -- represented by Marc Foxx

Contemporary Fine Arts, Berlin -- www.cfa-berlin.com
Corvi-Mora, London -- www.corvi-mora.com
Sorcha Dallas, Glasgow -- www.sorchadallas.com
Thomas Dane Gallery, London -- www.thomasdane.com
Galleria Massimo De Carlo, Milan -- www.massimodecarlo.it
Dicksmith Gallery, London -- www.dicksmithgallery.co.uk
doggerfisher, Edinburgh -- www.doggerfisher.com
Galerie Eigen + Art, Berlin -- www.eigen-art.com
Galerie Frank Elbaz, Paris -- www.galeriefrankelbaz.com
Foksal Gallery Foundation, Warsaw

Joel Croxson-- Echo Balls, 2009, Acrylic on Linen with wooden strip, 130 x 68 cms -- represented by Dicksmith Gallery

Galeria Fortes Vilaça, Sao Paulo -- www.fortesvilaca.com.br
Marc Foxx, Los Angeles -- www.marcfoxx.com
Carl Freedman Gallery, London -- www.carlfreedmangallery.com
Stephen Friedman Gallery, London -- www.stephenfriedman.com
Frith Street Gallery, London -- www.frithstreetgallery.com

James Rosenquist loses home, two studios, and art to a wild brush fire in Florida

Sun Li, Oil and acrylic on canvas, 74.3 x 48 in. (188.6 x 121.9 cm.), 2005. Courtesy Acquavella Galleries. Painted at Aripeka, FL

The west Florida home of world renowned artist James Rosenquist has been lost to a wild brush fire. The fire also claimed two of Rosenquist’s Florida studios-- which contained recent artwork that was destined for an art show in New York City. Rosenquist, 75, has stated that he was “totally wiped out”. I’ve been told that Rosenquist evacuated safely and that he watched his home and studios burn from a boat near his property. Apparently the 80 acre fire has since been contained. No one was injured in the blaze.

Most of the media reports of the incident describe James Rosenquist as a famous Pop artist. However, when I interviewed Rosenquist in 2008 he offered some thoughts on that. He stated, “They called me a Pop artist because I used recognizable imagery. The critics like to group people together. I didn't meet Andy Warhol until 1964. I did not really know Andy or Roy Lichtenstein that well. We all emerged separately.”.

Links of Interest:

James Rosenquist: Painting is done with a paintbrush -- Myartspace Blog www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/01/james-rosenquist-painting-is-done-with.html

Interview with James Rosenquist -- Myartspace Blog
www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/04/art-space-talk-james-rosenquist.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Damien Hirst Talks Fallen Prices, Diamond Skulls, and Bronze Meteorites.

For the Love of God by Damien Hirst

Damien Hirst has been busy with the largest exhibit of his artwork to date-- which recently opened in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev at the Pinchuk Art Centre. The exhibit, titled “Requiem”, was organized by billionaire Victor Pinchuk and involves more than 100 works of art by Hirst. However, Hirst apparently has other things on his mind. He recently made statements about plans for exhibiting his $100 million platinum and diamond skull, titled For the Love of God, throughout London and that he is thinking about making bronze meteorites. Hirst also recently commented about money and the art market.

Damien Hirst is in a unique position due to the fact that he is a top selling artist as well as an influential-- did I say extremely wealthy?-- art collector. That said, Hirst has stated that he is not buying in the current market. Apparently he is waiting for prices to be more favorable before investing. Hirst stated that ’Cash is King’ in the current art market-- suggesting that artists and art dealers are willing to accept less due to the burden of the fractured economy-- thus, it is a waiting to game to capture great deals.

Hirst knows the market-- last year an auction of his work at Sotheby’s earned nearly $200 million. The irony being that Hirst’s groundbreaking auction success coincided with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.. Since that time art prices have dropped upwards of 50%. Based on Hirst’s recent statement it would seem that he expects prices to drop further before the art market-- or the economy for that matter-- is stable. That said, Hirst views the ongoing global financial crisis as the perfect time for artists to come into their own, so to speak.

Hirst recently stated that he feels that artists have an easier time making art during bad economic times and that it is a “good thing” that art collectors are not buying art as they had in recent years. Hirst went on to suggest that artists should not create art with the idea of financial gain and that the only thing that matters is if the work is “good or not” instead of how much the art is priced or how much it cost to create.

One can assume that Hirst feels that the prior strength of the art market-- a strength that made him a very wealthy artist as well as art collector-- may have held some artists back as the pursuit of wealth overtook the pursuit of creating works that last outside of the art market bubble. The irony being that Damien Hirst has become-- in the eyes of some art critics-- the symbol of extravagance that has reduced the art market to its current condition.

Links of Interest:

Hirst Says Art Prices May Still Fall as His Biggest Show Opens
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aBGFO001TIWY

Damien Hirst says crisis will stimulate artists
www.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090424/lf_nm_life/us_ukraine_art_hirst_1

The "bejewelled trinkets" of Damien Hirst

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/bejewelled-trinkets-of-damien-hirst.html

Damien Hirst is Looking Ahead

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/damien-hirst-is-looking-ahead.html

For the Love of God: Damien Hirst Threatens Young Artist with Legal Action

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/for-love-of-god-damien-hirst-threatens.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Art Market Crises: A Crooked Art Dealer and Angry Art Collector

Lawrence B. Salander in Court, Via New York Times

Weeding my way through recent art news I hit on two stories of interest. One involves a crooked art dealer and the other involves an angry art collector. Both stories are being hailed as examples of the collapse of the art market as we know. Oddly enough, in both situations the state of the economy has received some of the blame-- or is acknowledged for having opened the window for outsiders to view the deceit.

The art dealer, Lawrence B. Salander, was arrested in late March after being accused of stealing over $88 million from several art owners, investors, and Bank of America. Salander has been charged with grand larceny, forgery, falsifying business records, scheming to defraud, and perjury. Needless to say, the once prominent art dealer has pleaded not guilty. Salander faces up to 25 years in prison and his bail is set at $1 million.

My guess is that Salander will not be dealing in art anytime soon-- especially since his Salander-O’ Reilly Galleries is now bankrupt. This is the type of art dealer that gives all art dealers a bad name.

Links of Interest:
Salander Charged with Stealing $88 million [Artforum]
Times Topics:Lawrence B. Salander [New York Times]

Art Dealer is Charged with Stealing $88 Million [New York Times]

Francis Bacon, Study for a Self-Portrait, 1964, Via Rawartint

The art collector, George Weiss, is furious with high-profile auction house Christie’s. Weiss filed a lawsuit against Christie’s due to the fact that the auction house was unable to sell a self-portrait by Francis Bacon owned by Weiss. Christie’s had offered Weiss a minimum guarantee that the Bacon would sell. Unfortunately, the auction house failed to follow through after Weiss consigned the work. Christie’s has noted the turmoil of the art market in their defense. When all else fails-- blame the economy.

Links of Interest:
Christie’s Sued For $40M Over Francis Bacon Painting [Wall Street Journal]

Christie’s Auction House Sued Over Francis Bacon Guarantee [Bloomberg]

Christie’s Is Sued After Francis Bacon Painting Fails to Sell [New York Times]

The economic crises has fueled an already chaotic art world. In New York City there has been a betting game going on amongst gallery staff concerning which gallery will close next. Artists are have been forced to move to less expensive studios. Materials are becoming more pricey. Art museums are cutting staff and benefits. From that woodwork the roaches of the art market will surely be exposed-- and stomped upon.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

Myartspace Blog on Twitter

www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

The Downward Spiral of the Chinese Contemporary Art Market

An untitled painting by Zeng Fanzhi

In recent years the market for Chinese contemporary artists has been hot in the global art market. Many of the top selling Chinese artists were virtually unknown before the Chinese art market boom at high profile auction houses and art fairs. Successful Chinese contemporary artists, such as Zeng Fanzhi, reaped what quick fame and fortune offers to artists who dominate the global art market. Due to global success artists from Shanghai and Beijing have been able to operate large studios in order to create further work. However, success can be fleeting-- these artists are now caught in what has been described as the “downward spiral” of the contemporary Chinese art market.

Galleries and art dealers in Shanghai and Beijing are facing some of the same struggles that galleries in New York City and other hubs of the art world have been challenged by in recent months. At the core of the plight is the ongoing global financial crisis. Art collectors worldwide are not as wealthy as they were just a year ago-- thus, aspects of the art market have been caught in a financial freeze, so to speak. Prices for art have dropped rapidly-- meaning the value for specific artists may be in limbo. In other words, high profile collectors are wary to invest in an uncertain global art market.

Chinese contemporary artists who were steadily patronized over the last few years are now faced with the humble reality that perhaps their art will falter within the global art market. Even the top auction houses, such as Sotheby’s, have been reluctant to spotlight Chinese contemporary art in recent months. This has lead insiders to suggest that the era of high-priced Chinese contemporary art is over. Rumors suggest that the market for Chinese contemporary art may bottom out before the global economy recovers. Thus, the fate of these artists within the global art market is not clear.

The surge in popularity for Chinese contemporary art among wealthy global art collectors-- such as Charles Saatchi-- came without warning. Artprice.com only listed one Chinese artist on their Top 10 best-selling living artists list in 2004. By 2007, 5 of the 10 best-selling living artists at auction were from China according to Artprice.com. The most acclaimed Chinese contemporary artist for that year, Zhang Xiaogang, had total auction sales of over $56 million.

Zhang Xiaogang ranked under Damien Hirst and Gerhard Richter in 2007-- two artists who have long dominated the global art market. The rise of Chinese contemporary art came swift. Unfortunately, the crash of the Chinese contemporary art market in the last year came just as sudden. It begs the question-- will any Chinese contemporary artists remain on the Artprice.com best-selling list of living artists after 2009? Who knows what will happen in this turbulent market.

Some feel that the bust of the Chinese contemporary art market was needed in order to sustain the validity of the market for Chinese contemporary art as a whole. Wealthy art collectors and art dealers, such as Charles Saatchi, had artificially driven up prices by investing heavily in art by Chinese contemporary artists-- according to some insiders. Other high profile art collectors and art dealers followed suit in what I like to call the ‘Keeping up with the Saatchi’s' effect.

A few of these individuals were quick to open galleries in China in order to take advantage of the flow of wealth-- now gallery doors are closing. Needless to say, some individuals feel that the artificial rise of specific artists-- not just Chinese contemporary artists-- within the global art market must come to an end in order for the global art market to have a steady business foundation that places integrity and sustainability above excessive personal gain.

Thus, it is felt that art dealers-- in general-- must take more responsibility within the global art market by helping their represented artists sustain the market for their work in a realistic manner. For example, art collectors/dealers who artificially increase prices may need to be avoided if the global art market is to have a strong foundation. Unfortunately, many artists throughout the world will fall victim due to key art world power players who have already manipulated the market for their own needs. The global art market as we know it will never be the same. Integrity is due.

Link of Interest:

China’s Art Market: Cold or Maybe Hibernating? By David Barboza -- The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/arts/design/11decl.html?_r=1

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
Myartspace Blog on Twitter
www.twitter.com/myartspace_blog

Social Art Site Has Offline Presence: myartspace.com opens NYAXE Gallery in Palo Alto, CA

Eighteen members of the www.myartspace.com community were represented digitally during the opening of the NYAXE Gallery. Six were physically represented at the gallery.

The grand opening of the NYAXE Gallery in Palo Alto, CA on February 26th was a great success. The exhibit opened at 6pm and was met with a steady flow of visitors. Art collectors and other attendees observed artwork by 24 members of the myartspace.com community. The exhibit space was filled with good conversation, exquisite music, and powerful works of contemporary art. The event was a meshing between the physical and online art world.

Steve Benjamin entertained NYAXE Gallery visitors.

The represented members were chosen from a selective-- ongoing --competition that allows members of the myartspace.com community to compete for NYAXE Gallery representation.

Six of the gallery representation winners were selected for physical representation at the NYAXE Gallery: Murray Hidary , Jennifer Wasson , Fanne Fernow , Chadney Everett , Nick Weber , and LeRoy Howard . Eighteen winners were selected for digital representation: Stuart McCall , Jesse Benson , Pau Guerrero-Prado , Alex Jarosz , Paul Ruiz , Dirk Franke , Terry Amburgey , Manny Rodriguez , Aldo Bertolini , Andrew Johann Salgado , Thea Pratt , Lorella Paleni , Douglas Newton , Kevin Sharkey , Angel Plata , Michail Parlamas , Jon Barwick , Kirk Lanier .

Visitors enjoy viewing art at the NYAXE Gallery opening.

The NYAXE Gallery, located at 818 Emerson St. in Palo Alto, also featured two guest artists from the myartspace.com community. Lucy May -- the first place winner of the 2008 myartspace.com graduate art scholarship competition, and Sarah Sisun -- first place winner of the 2008 myartspace.com undergraduate art scholarship competition. You can learn more about the 2008 art scholarship winners, which involved $16,000 in cash scholarships, by visiting, www.myartspace.com/scholarships/winners.

The opening exhibit also featured art by the late Lois Foley . Mrs. Foley is the mother of Catherine McCormack-Skiba and has served as a constant source of inspiration for the development of the myartspace community. Catherine McCormack-Skiba, the CEO, founder and Creative Director of myartspace.com, was on hand to meet visitors.

Collectors gathering at the bar…

The opening of the NYAXE Gallery in Palo Alto, CA marks myartspace.com as one of only a few social art sites to have a physical presence in the form of a brick & mortar gallery-- as well as the only online art community to have a physical gallery presence in the heart of Silicon Valley. The NYAXE Gallery places myartspace.com members art within reach of some of the most powerful-- and wealthy-- professionals in the United States.

myartspace.com is the leading online social network for the contemporary art world. Dubbed "the biggest network you never heard of" The Next Web, the site continues to experience dramatic reception by the art community. myartspace was the first site to offer compelling, integrated presentation technology -- the ability to blend images of art, music, video and audio narration all online. The company also distinguishes itself by being a free and open community with unlimited upload of images, videos and music.

Catherine McCormack-Skiba, Founder and CEO of myartspace, notes "It's very exciting to energize the creative spirit in Silicon Valley with world-class contemporary art. The blend of the technology innovation center of the world, and compelling art is very inspiring".

The NYAXE Gallery involves an ongoing competition that allows members of the www.myartspace.com community to submit work for gallery representation consideration. The competition is free for Premium myartspace.com members to enter. For more info visit, www.myartspace.com/nyaxegallery

Catherine McCormack-Skiba, the CEO, founder and Creative Director of myartspace.com, was on hand to meet visitors.

You can learn more about Premium membership on myartspace.com by visiting the following page, www.myartspace.com/premium. You can learn more about the current represented artists by visiting, www.myartspace.com/nyaxegallery/winners

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Looking Beyond the Hype: Is the contemporary art market a fraud?

There has been a hailstorm of questions concerning the art market since the global financial bust. As the art market continues to have ups and downs some art collectors, art dealers, as well as the general public have demanded answers concerning the integrity of the art market as a whole. The focus of the criticism has been placed on the ethical practices of some art dealers and collectors. Needless to say, people are starting to examine the art market closer than they ever had before. At the source there is a great deal of hype to be found.

Many of the questions are common-- some were asked before the recent art world financial meltdown. Were prices inflated? Were novice art collectors duped? Did some gallerists sell 'lemon art' knowing that the investment would only ride as long as the art market continued to advance in a positive direction? Did top art collectors foster a market of excessive prices for their own gain? Are some artists to blame? Is the general public to blame? Who is responsible? The questions build up as each week goes by-- frustration creates an environment of outrage.

This atmosphere of doubt offers the perfect time for individuals to make powerful statements concerning their position within the art market. People desire answers-- in this burdened financial climate a strong answer can easily become a battle cry. However, there is also room for the age old ‘my art is better than your art’ rhetoric that tends to creep out of the woodwork whenever the art market is in peril. Needless to say, I think we should all focus on what is really being said when someone speaks of the art market crises-- especially if they are throwing up a finger of blame. An underlining ploy can often rise to the surface when words are examined next to the position of who is saying them.

A perfect example of this can be found in a recent article in The Independent (UK). The Independent article states that David Nahmad-- an influential Monaco-based art dealer -- has lashed out against the contemporary art market. Nahmad suggests that contemporary art is a “fraud“. In the article Nahmad suggests that a handful of art collectors have artificially increased the value for certain artists work and that art dealers willfully duped novice art collectors into buying high priced art knowing that the art would be of little value after an art market bust.

David Nahmad is not foolish for lashing out. After all, he is aware that others support his view. Those who support Nahmad’s opinion feel that the recent collapse of the art market is “proof” that contemporary art is of little value. Needless to say, most of those critics have a vested interest in the same aspect of the art market that Nahmad deals in. In that sense, Nahmad’s statement is business as usual. In a sense, Nahmad is reacting to hype with hype.

The key point of David Nahmad’s criticism can be summed up with one of his statements, that being, “I would never advise my clients to buy contemporary art.”. Nahmad’s criticism aside-- it should be noted that he deals in modern art and feels that art has not advanced since Francis Bacon. In other words, one could say that his criticism against the contemporary art market is simply a ploy to support his own market.

Thus, one could say that by questioning the integrity of the contemporary art market-- a market Nahmad opposes in the first place --he is also placing his own integrity into question. In other words, the worms tend to rise up if you cut open the surface of a dead beaten horse. In that sense Nahmad has not solidified an answer to the art market crises as much as he has played on the fears, paranoia, and anger that is already present.

In any business fear, paranoia, and anger will arise if the foundation of its respected market starts to crumble. Concerning the art market as a whole-- this fear has driven many to compare key figures within the business of art to organized criminals. I have no doubt that David Nahmad played on those fears when making his statements to The Independent-- he won’t be the last to proclaim that the contemporary aspect of the art market is fraudulent-- while proclaiming that his own niche in the art market is the “real deal". True, some of Nahmad's underlining criticism is warranted. That said, his intentions-- as a whole-- should be examined based on the scope of his words as they apply to his business ventures.

With that in mind, I think it is unfair to suggest that gallerists can be compared to mafia lords as some critics have done. After all, unlike a mafia boss a gallerist makes offers that you can refuse. So in that respect, some of the responsibility falls on novice art collectors themselves for having bought into a market that continued to soar without restraint. Buyers in any market can control the market by their choice to purchase or decline, true? Surely David Nahmad would agree with that. Buying on hype alone is not an investment. Keeping up with Charles Saatchi is not an investment. Sometimes a fool needs to be called a fool.

Not everyone agrees with the criticism of David Nahmad. A columnist for The Art Newspaper, Louisa Buck, responded to Nahmad‘s statements. She said, “There is no doubt that the likes of Rothko, Picasso and Matisse are magisterial figures, but the art world has moved on and to dismiss everything after Bacon is utter nonsense.”. I have to agree with Buck’s statement-- especially since it is obvious that David Nahmad is playing on the current art market crises in order to support the aspect of the market he deals in. That said, I do agree that overpricing-- and inflated prices in general --have been a problem in the art market.

I don’t think it is fair for Nahmad to suggest that it has only happened in recent years nor do I think it is fair for him to suggest that contemporary art is the only aspect of the art market that has involved inflated pricing. One could say that hype pricing, if you will, has been going on for several decades now and has involved works of art by living artists as well as artists who have long passed. In that sense, every aspect of the art market needs to be examined-- including the aspect of the art market that David Nahmad holds dear.

In other words, there is no single villain in this scenario. In many ways we all played a role-- from the artist, to the dealer, to the art collector, to the viewing public who lined up to see the art with their own eyes. We were all caught in the hype that energized the art market just before it crashed. In many ways this decadence-- this vehicle of hype-- reflects the same turmoil that has resulted in our faltering economy. Thus, we should question ourselves.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that the art market should be looked at with a scope. I do think that some artists, dealers, and collectors use unethical means to establish themselves within the public conscience-- and I say that because I feel that art that is honored should be honored due to merit instead of hype or artificially spurred public interest. Art appreciation should not be dictated or established by these means in my opinion. We should be wary of media hype-- especially where art is concerned. After all, we are talking about art-- something that defines our culture and who we are as a people-- not a new line of car or some other updated consumer good that only has value in the here and now.

It is true that mass publicity can establish an artist beyond the level of acclaim that he or she would have otherwise-- we observed that recently with the artist Shepard Fairey due to his association with a public relations firm that had worked with the Obama campaign. It was not by accident that his ’Hope’ poster ended up being a mainstream news phenomenon. Thus, it is no accident that his artwork is now worth far more than it originally had been. True, the media hype was brilliant from a business standpoint-- but I would like to think that art, including the art market itself, is based more on merit than a carefully planned media campaign established to create buzz for an artist. If anything, that is the problem with the art market at this time-- it is a problem that can be found in every aspect of our society.

That said, I do think that novice art collectors as well as the general public need to take a deeper look at exactly what they are praising-- and if their praise stems from a media bombardment which tells us what is 'good' art or 'bad' art. People need to ask if the artwork they view and purchase is truly groundbreaking, if it truly speaks, if it is authentic, and if it can stand alone without a media bombardment of praise. Only then, in my opinion, will the art market-- and any market for that matter-- have a degree of authenticity and true integrity.

Is the Contemporary art market a fraud? I don't think so. However, I do think there is room for change. What are your thoughts?

Link of Interest:

Contemporary art is a fraud, says top dealer -- The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/contemporary-art-is-a-fraud-says-top-dealer-1628929.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
Myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Eugenio Merino's Controversial Damien Hirst Sculpture: For the Love of Gold

4 the Love of Go(l)d by Eugenio Moreno. Photograph: ADN Galeria

British art critics ranging from Robert Hughes to the Stuckists have been suggesting that Damien Hirst has a hole in his head for years. One could say that sculptor Eugenio Merino agrees with said criticism-- but not in the way you might think. Eugenio Merino has created a life-size sculpture of Damien Hirst-- complete with inflated head (representing ego?)-- which places the British art in a suicide pose.

Merino’s Hirst is posed on his knees holding a Colt 45 to his head-- a bloodied bullet wound glistens as blood runs down the sculptures mouth. The sculpture, titled ‘For the Love of Gold’ -- also known as '4 the Love of Go(l)d'-- was unveiled at the 28th Madrid International Contemporary Art Fair (ARCO) alongside other works by Eugenio Merino that parody Damien Hirst’s art and art world status. The sculpture stirred controversy within hours of being unveiled.

Merino has stated that the sculpture-- which has been placed in a tank similar to the tanks used by Damien Hirst to display the remains of animals in formaldehyde-- is symbolic of the financial crisis that is facing the art world. Merino’s controversial sculpture is a parody of Hirst’s ‘For the Love of God’, a widely successful piece involving a diamond encrusted skull that sold for more than $100 million to a group of investors in 2007-- just before the global financial meltdown.

Eugenio Merino has stated that Damien Hirst is too concerned about profit. Merino has suggested to reporters that Hirst should shoot himself since he is so concerned about money, stating that if Hirst did that the value of his work would “increase dramatically“. Merino has made it clear that the sculpture is a “joke” and that he does not wish harm on Damien Hirst-- in fact, Merino is a fan of Hirst and studied his art extensively while in art school. Merino stated, "It is a joke but it is also paradoxical that if he did kill himself his work would be worth even more,". He went on to say that the sculpture is a metaphor for the current state of the art world.

Eugenio Merino’s visual message about the excess and decadence of the art world has taken an ironic twist in that his ‘For the Love of Gold’ has already been purchased for $41,000. Other reports state that all of Merino’s Hirst parodies have been bought by collectors in Portugal and Holland. Which begs the question-- are collectors missing Merino’s message? Perhaps they are unknowing participants. Merino has stated, "It is ironic. I've never sold so much.". For the love of gold, indeed.

A collage by Cartrain involving Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'

Damien Hirst has yet to respond concerning Eugenio Merino's controversial sculpture. It will be interesting to see if he responds to Merino in the same way that he responded to Cartrain-- the young British street artist who made parodies of Hirst's 'For the Love of God' not long ago. Cartrain was forced to hand over the profit he made from selling his parodies-- around $200-- as well as the remaining prints and original works. Some reports have stated that Cartrain's prints and original works have since been destroyed. Which begs the question-- will Eugenio Merino's 'For the Love of Gold' share the same fate?

Links of Interest:

Spanish artist shocks with Damien Hirst gun sculpture
www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2009/02/15/hirst-sculpture-spain.html?ref=rss

Spanish artist creates Damian Hirst suicide sculpture
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/4693494/Spanish-artist-creates-Damian-Hirst-suicide-sculpture.html

'Suicide' sculpture of Damien Hirst causes controversy in Spain
www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/18/damien-hirst-suicide-sculpture-eugenio-moreno

For the Love of God: Damien Hirst Threatens Young Artist with Legal Action

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/12/for-love-of-god-damien-hirst-threatens.html

Birds of a Feather Flock Together: Damien Hirst & Shepard Fairey / Cartrain & Baxter Orr

www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/birds-of-feather-flock-together-damien.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Art Space Talk: Christian M Benedetto, Jr. (art collector)

Christian M Benedetto, Jr. is the CEO of Hopkins Sampson & Brown Equities, LLC. Christian is an avid collector of art. Many of his art purchases are made online. As an online collector of art Christian has had great interest in the development of myartspace.com. He and his wife Suzy live in suburban Morris County, New Jersey with their son Christian III.

www.myartspace.com is a networking site for artists, gallerists, art collectors and others involved with visual art. The eCommerce platform for myartspace.com is the New York Art Exchange (NYAXE), www.nyaxe.com. The two sites were founded by Catherine McCormack-Skiba and Brian Skiba. The founders will soon open a brick & mortar gallery in Palo Alto, California. The gallery will feature artists from the myartspace.com community.

Winter Field 1 by Lois Foley. www.nyaxe.com/lois.foley

Brian Sherwin: Christian, you are an avid art collector with an interest in www.myartspace.com. Can you discuss what attracted you to the myartspace community and to viewing art online in general?

Christian M Benedetto Jr.: It is very practical and time saving to be able to view art online. Online I can comparison shop between emerging artists with ease. It is also a great way to save time. For example, my wife Suzy and I had a son last spring, so time has really become an issue. Going to brick & mortar galleries is a little tougher with a stroller.

It is nice to be able to visit the myartspace online galleries in the comfort of my own home. Myartspace has also been a way to have my young son participate in viewing art. My son will often sit on my lap as I scroll through art clicking away. He has a pretty good eye and is a huge Charlie Spears fan.

I look at a few hundred pieces of art per month online. I would not be able to achieve that if I had to physically visit galleries. The other great thing about looking at art online is that it allows the viewer to click over to Google and find out more about the artist. It is relatively easy to discover where an artist has exhibited and what they have accomplished by searching for them online.

Strangers, Friends, & Lovers by Ariane Bartosh. www.nyaxe.com/arianebartosh

BS: Do you mind giving our readers some insight into your personal collection? How many works of art do you own? Are there any specific pieces that stand out in your opinion?

CB: I have a few pieces that I really, really enjoy. I was very lucky to come across Shawn Barber in 1997 when he was still an undergraduate student at Ringling School of Art and Design. I bought a piece called “Coltrane in Blue” which won Best in Show for the school’s senior class art show. It was the first piece he ever sold.

Shawn went on to become the Illustrator of the Year for MTV in 2001, has done the US and Germany Grammy’s, countless works in Magazines and has a few books out and is a regular on TV. His shows always sell out in a day or two. I have been offered about 100 times the price I paid for the piece. I have about a dozen other pieces of his works and still stay in touch with him.

Then there is a painting which I bought through Myartspace.com by Charlie Spears called Topsy Turvey for my son, Christian III, before he was born. The painting hangs in his room and he looks at it all the time, smiles, and every time he does, it melts Suzy’s and my heart, so it is very special. I also have a very large Daniel Ferriss pencil drawing from the 1920s of a twenty-one story building I owned. It was given to me by the late Leona Helmsley. We sold the building years later, but I still have the drawing – the detail is unreal.

The Hopkins Sampson & Brown Equities, LLC collection is believed to be one of the largest, if not the largest, privately held art collections in New Jersey. We have never sold a piece; we have donated a few and have even taken pieces right off the wall to give to friends, clients and visitors who remarked about a piece. Our goal is to have 10,000 paintings over the next twenty five years.
Wedding Table by Alex Golden. www.nyaxe.com/alex.golden

BS: My understanding is that you purchase art online as well as in the Traditional method of visiting brick & mortar galleries. Traditionalists of the art market will often mention that viewing art online will never replace viewing art in person-- which suggests that viewing and buying art online is inferior to the traditional model of art business. What is your stance on this issue?

CB: I say to them, go to a high end Auction house for a live auction and see how many bidders are bidding via the Phone and have never seen the piece up close and personal or who sent representative to bid for them. The quality of digital photos, slides, and other media have improved greatly in the last few years.

Sometimes a collector can actually inspect a piece better using these methods than he or she could accomplish viewing a work of art on hanging on the wall at a brick & mortar gallery. Best of all the art can be viewed with your schedule in mind instead of the galleries schedule.

Pollen by Kalliope Amorphous. www.nyaxe.com/kalliope

BS: So do you tend to buy from artists that you are aware of when buying art online? Or do you also buy from emerging artists who are unknown to you? Is it a mix?

CB: I would say emerging artists who are unknown to me, as well as Journeymen artist who are also unknown to me. People recommend artist to me all the time and I am involved fairly heavily in the New Jersey Art Scene.

In New Jersey I’ve helped several galleries obtain free space and we do more than our fair share of pro bono real estate work for Artist and Artist housing. Needless to say, I get a lot of pitches, so it is nice to be able to surf myartspace and the New York Art Exchange.

ChangAn Club, Beijing, China by Beatrix Reinhardt. www.nyaxe.com/beatrix.reinhardt

BS: You have mentioned that you have bought art off of artists that you have met on myartspace. Can you tell us more about that?

CB: On myartspace I have purchased art from Charlie Spears and Adrienne Outlaw. Both are wonderful artists who stayed in touch with us. They have kept in contact by sending notes, e-mails and cards. Adrienne even sent our son a teddy bear when he was born. Charlie checks in with me and gives me advice about being a dad and such. I share a lot of the poems I write for my son and wife with him. I have purchased other works off of the site by artists I had in my collection earlier.

Summer's End by Lee Ables. www.nyaxe.com/leeables

BS: As an avid collector of art I assume that you have many associates who also collect art. What sort of feedback have you obtained from fellow art collectors concerning www.myartspace.com?

CB: Its all been very positive, the site allows artists to price their works much more competitively and still make more money, as they are not paying 35-50% to the gallery, so you can really find some fantastic art at all price points. What a great deal of people hate to admit is that Art is a business. I’m happy if I can buy three paintings online for the price I would pay for two at a gallery with the end result of putting more money into the artist’s pocket. It is really a win-win situation for the artist and the buyer.

Galleries can also do well online because every gallery has the same issue-- space. For example, it would not be hard for a gallery to represent 100 artists online and maintain an online store of 800 paintings. So if the gallerist is really in it to help the artist why would he or she not want to have a store on the New York Art Exchange? Maintaining a store on NYAXE is very practical and efficient.

Whitley Heights, LA by Alysia Kaplan. www.nyaxe.com/alysia.kaplan

BS: You are very open about the fact that you are an art collector on Myartspace-- I assume that you receive many inquiries from artists interested in showing you examples of their work. Do you have any advice for artists as far as contacting known collectors online?

CB: I would suggest that they be very exact in their e-mails, letters or calls. There is nothing worse than to be contacted by someone who is not really sure why they are calling or if they are looking for an unrealistic jump in their price point. For example, MFA students looking to sell me pieces for $30,000 when they have never sold a piece for more than $4,000 makes no sense to me. I’m also annoyed by people looking for funding for a project without providing me a written plan. Those are two of my pet peeves.

So here is some advice: Have a plan, be organized and assertive, don’t come off as aggressive. I have had more than a few artists send me paintings for free so they could say they were in our collection and we have ended up buying several pieces from them since. Show me your passion for your craft.

I bought a wonderful piece by Brian Guidry. When it arrived Janet (our registrar) started to unpack it, she called me over saying, “You have to see this!”. I was thinking oh great it was damaged being shipped up from Louisiana. However, when I got into the conference room I found the most amazing hand made carry case/crate. It was custom made with a handle and neatly burned into the wood was the painting name and our name. Brian must have spent 10 hours making it, his passion for his work showed.

The same is true with Sharon Shapiro, she always tells me her paintings are like her children and when she ships her work she goes the extra mile. Let the passion and love of your work carry throughout, Art is a business, treat it like such. I cannot tell you the number of times we get things shipped to us that are packed in a hurry and it shows. If it appears that you do not care about your art a collector may very well lose interest.

I'll Let You Be In My Dreams If I Can Be In Yours by Herbert Murrie. www.nyaxe.com/herbertmurrie

BS: Do you have any suggestions for how artists should present themselves online? For example, do you pay more attention to art community profiles and personal websites that contain detailed information about the artist compared to profiles or personal websites that offer little biographical information? In other words, do you like to know about who you are planning to buy from or does it matter?

CB: If I like something I will know instantly. I do however like to see some biographical information, other shows they have been in, if they have a list of collectors-- it is nice to know who owns some of their works. Sometimes I’ll know one of their old professors or another collector and reach out for them to find out a little bit more. So yes, the more information the better.

Wrinkled 24 by Christina Massey. www.nyaxe.com/cmasseyart

BS: As you know, many art collectors are wary about buying art online. There is always great concern with transaction involving large sums of money. Do you have any advice for art collectors who have yet to take the leap as far as buying art online is concerned?

CB: Anthony Benedetto (no relation, who is better known as Tony Bennett) original works sell for $6000 to $60,000 and as far as I know, he has no gallery you can visit – it’s all done via the internet and phone. However, my advice would be to go slow and take some precautions. If it seems too good to be true it most likely is. For example, I do not think I would buy a Picasso off Ebay for $10,000 it would just seem too cheap.
Faunagraphic Parrots by Fauna Graphic. www.nyaxe.com/faunagraphic
BS: Any predictions on how sites like myartspace will change the direction of the art world-- or at least offer galleries an alternative to the traditional art market? Do you think that the traditional art market will be more apt to mesh with new technology and methods of marketing-- such as eCommerce-- as time goes on?

CB: There are few things that compare in the Art world with walking into your favorite gallery in Rome, Venice, San Francisco or New York (you get the idea) having some refreshments and looking at art while being wooed. But the internet travels at the speed of light, so I can be in Rome, Venice, San Francisco and New York all within the same hour looking at all the artists the gallery has-- not just the one showing that day, plus a wider view of the work.

We all love going into an actual bookstore on a rainy day and getting lost for hours wandering through the aisle and forgetting what we were looking for, but how many times have we left with nothing only to go home and order a few books-- the same products-- on amazon.com because it was cheaper? What I’m saying is that Myartspace.com will not replace galleries. However, it does give us more options and better pricing. People like to save time and money when they shop-- art is no different.
Six Pomegranate Seeds by Jenevieve Hubbard. www.nyaxe.com/jenevievehubbard

BS: In your opinion, why have certain circles of the art world scoffed at the idea of buying and selling art online aside from the reasons I've already mentioned?

CB: I think buying at a gallery, especially a higher end gallery, is a status symbol to some people. It is kind of like buying high end brand name clothes. I am fond of saying “just how cold does your ice need to be” If you want to support the artist, buying online is a fantastic way to get more money in their pocket, while saving yourself some along the way.

Many Galleries are embarrassed selling online and have neglected to develop an Internet strategy and marketing plan. What galleries need to remember is that there is not much difference between myartspace and the New York Art Exchange than an overseas buyer calling in his bids at an auction in NY or London. Many brick & mortar galleries are losing profit because they have failed to adapt to these changes.
Bend #1 by Chadwick Gibson. www.nyaxe.com/chadwickgibson

BS: Finally, are you considering any purchases at this time on the myartspace platform for eCommerce, the New York Art Exchange (NYAXE)?

CB: I am a huge Arielle Sandler fan, I own over a half dozen or more of her works, and I used one of her painting as the cover of my third book. She had a great piece in the New York Times Magazine not to long ago, recently her work was featured on the TV shows Brothers & Sisters and Eli Stone. I stop by her myartspace.com page all the time to see what she has put up. Same with Charlie Spears, Jill Moser, Sharon Shapiro, Eric Brown and David X Levine.

I would really like to add a few pieces of Eric Foxs’, he is an artist from Long Beach, NY who does fantastic work using lobster traps as canvas with beach themes, and bright vibrant colors. Having grown up surfing on the New Jersey Shore his art takes me back.

Christian is currently a member of the myartspace.com community-- www.myartspace.com/christianbenedetto. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews. For further information about myartspace.com or nyaxe.com please write, info at catmacart.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Red Rag To a Bull vs. Other Criteria?

Cha-Ching!

A report from Bloomberg explains that Damien Hirst has opened a second Other Criteria (www.othercriteria.com) store in London. Some may recall from past Myartspace Blog articles that Other Criteria is Hirst’s publishing and merchandising venture. Of the store Hirst has stated, “I don’t think art has ever been as popular as it is today and Other Criteria aims to sell affordable art of the highest quality to everyone who wants it.” . Apparently the price for Other Criteria art and merchandise ranges from $5 to $5,800.

Some art world insiders view Other Criteria as a jab at the traditional art market. After all, the first Other Criteria store was opened next to Sotheby’s shortly after Hirst’s “Beautiful Inside My Head Forever.” which took place at the auction house. Hirst’s break from the traditional brick & mortar art market stirred shock waves of criticism from gallery owners throughout the world. Needless to say, many gallerists feared that top billed artists would decide to take their art and career into their own hands by following Hirst’s independent lead. You can’t blame Hirst for being an entrepreneur .

On the other side of the UK art spectrum, the Stuckists-- as reported by Bloomberg-- have opened up their own online ‘store’ at www.redragtoabull.com. The site states, “Red Rag To A Bull is a radical institution dedicated to the pursuit of "FREEDOM, TRUTH and JUSTICE in the art world and BEYOND". And also overblown statements.”. The purpose of the site is “for CREATIVE CRITICAL REVIEW and should be treated as such“. The sites goes on to state that, “ALL images and any proposed sale of these images is designed to create critical dialogue and may or may not be what they first appear to be.”

In a sense the site is a conceptual anti-conceptual work in progress-- if there is such a thing. Needless to say, if it had been created by anyone else it would have probably been reviewed in a art magazine or two by now. On a side note: Readers of the Myartspace Blog may recall my interview with Charles Thomson -- Co-Founder of the Stuckists -- which was posted in October of 2006.

A collage by Cartrain involving Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'. Cha-Ching with an extra Cha.

Viewing the Red Rag To a Bull online store I noticed that one of its directives is to support CarTrain , the 16 year old street artist who was recently threatened by Damien Hirst’s legal team on allegations of copyright infringement. CarTrain, had created, distributed, and sold prints involving a parody of Hirst’s ‘For the Love of God’. It seems that Hirst was not thrilled to discover that a young graffiti artist had profited from prints involving his copyright protected works-- nevermind the fact that he himself has infringed on copyright in the past (reminds one of the Shepard Fairey vs. Baxter Orr issue).

That said, due to the fame of ‘For the Love of God’ I’m sure CarTrain’s Hirst parodies would be considered “fair use”-- at least in the United States. After all, the images by CarTrain served as a social comment about Hirst’s status in UK society as well as the art world in general. I don’t think there was any confusion as to who created what. CarTrain established dialogue with his parody.

Cartrain has some strong support-- Stuckists James Cauty, Jamie Reid, and Billy Childish have created various prints and other products that parody Damien Hirst’s artwork. Parodies of works by D*Face and the Chapman Brothers can also be found on the site.

Links of Interest:

Hirst Opens Second Shop, Defies Slump With 3.50 Pound Keychains -- Bloomberg

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aaThCKzrdQ_w

www.stuckism.com

www.othercriteria.com

www.redragtoabull.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com

New York Art Exchange

www.nyaxe.com

London Calling

www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Criticism and Arrest of Shepard Fairey Sparks Conspiracy Theories

The arrest of Shepard Fairey in Boston and recent mainstream criticism of Fairey’s art has sparked a number of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey range from anonymous comments left by individuals on blogs to lengthy articles posted on SuperTouch and Wooster Collective. I suppose it is time to wear a tin foil hat-- or perhaps it is time for certain individuals to realize that Shepard Fairey is a controversial artist who openly admits to the illegal aspects of some of his work and that debate and criticism is bound to occur concerning his ethics and process.

The Shepard Fairey conspiracy theories involve several angles. Some feel that criticism of Shepard Fairey’s art and ethics is nothing more-- as SuperTouch assumes --than a “widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey”. Others, as mentioned on Wooster Collective, feel that his recent arrest was politically motivated-- a way for Boston police to incite a riot in order to get even with the Mayor of Boston over pay issues. Some comments suggest that the mainstream art world is trying to “keep Shepard Fairey down” while others suggest that Shepard Fairey is the victim of an attack on “fair use” spearheaded by the Associated Press.

The conspiracy theories don't stop there-- some individuals have promoted the idea, based on comments left on the The Huffington Post and Boston Globe, that recent criticism and the arrest of Shepard Fairey is nothing more than anti-Obama spin. In fact, some have suggested that President Obama should "pardon" Shepard Fairey of any crimes and make his work "exempt" from copyright and trademark laws in the future. In other words, some view criticism of Shepard Fairey as being criticism against President Obama’s administration and vision of ‘change‘-- and that Fairey should be "protected" because he helped spur Obama's 'change'. Some of those same individuals have suggested that McCain supporters are behind the negative criticism of Shepard Fairey or that Republicans in general are behind it. I’m certain that other conspiracy theories will arise in the coming weeks.

So far each conspiracy theory lacks one crucial factor-- they all fail to suggest that maybe Shepard Fairey should be responsible for his actions and choices. I think President Obama would support the idea of Shepard Fairey taking responsibility. Instead, these conspiracy theories project excuses for Shepard Fairey. Is it wrong to suggest that Shepard Fairey should be responsible for how he creates his art or for where he places it? Is it wrong for individuals to be concerned when videos posted on ObeyGiant and elsewhere have shown Fairey and his crew speeding off in cars in order to avoid cops in heavy populated areas? If he failed to appear in court in 2000 shouldn’t he be held accountable in the same way that any other citizen would be?

Furthermore, if Shepard Fairey places himself in situations that force individuals to question his ethics-- such as infringing on the copyright of Rene Mederos or sending cease-and-desist letters to artists who parody his widely known images under “fair use” while at the same time defending himself under "fair use" against the Associated Press -- should he not take some responsibility and own up to questions that have been asked of him? After all, we expect politicians and CEOs to be responsible-- so why not artists? Why not Shepard Fairey?

The truth is that there isn’t a mass conspiracy against Shepard Fairey-- in fact, he is to blame for much of the negativity that shadows his career due to his choices and failure to take responsibility for his actions and words. The contradictions are his own-- not created. Instead, there is a lot of paranoia going around and much of it has been spread by longtime supporters of Shepard Fairey. These individuals have spread conspiracy theories on the Internet in order to protect their interest by creating an ‘us versus them‘ scenario among fans of the artist. In other words, they strive to rally support from Shepard Fairey's fan base in order to contain negative criticism and promote the idea that Fairey is a rebel facing unwarranted opposition. After all, that image-- that persona -- helps to sell shirts and other merchandise.

True, you could say my opinion is a conspiracy theory in itself. However, there is consistent evidence to back my claim. Almost all of the major supporters who have fostered conspiracy theories involving Shepard Fairey have a vested interest in his career or a shared interest in his view of “fair use” and other issues-- such as promoting specific causes, selling specific magazines or merchandise, and promoting specific artists or theories about art. These individuals could lose ground in their respected businesses if Shepard Fairey ends up being ridiculed or loathed by the masses. He is their cash cow.

In that sense, one could say that Shepard Fairey is a problematic figurehead for some of these individuals. If Fairey is a success their business is a success-- if Fairey is a failure their work will be much harder-- he can't be replaced with the same momentum. In other words, Shepard Fairey is a bet that can result in great returns-- a gamble that can make or break their fortune. Thus, it is no surprise to me that the battle cry of support-- these specific conspiracy theories and the viral nature in which they spread -- often originate from their respected websites.

My point is that the words of Jamie O’Shea (SuperTouch) and others who strive to demonize individuals who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics-- or who make up excuses for Fairey's lack of responsibility by placing him in the role of being a victim of “the Man”, “the system”, “conservatives”, “Republicans” or the “elite” -- only do so because of the position they would be in if Shepard Fairey is viewed as a “hack” or “fraud” by the majority of the public. Shepard Fairey’s failure in the eyes of the public would be bad for their business.

Needless to say, the defense of Shepard Fairey-- such as the SuperTouch article -- often appears to be a form of damage control. Under the surface it is nothing more than an attempt to protect a product. For example, the SuperTouch article posted by O’Shea was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website-- the same day that many were introduced to criticism of Shepard Fairey that they had not been aware of because the mainstream media had failed to report on it up until that time. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- it was the first time that Vallen’s critique had been mentioned on a mainstream news source that I'm aware of. It was long overdue. It comes as no surprise that the Fairey camp was quick to respond in kind.

The article by SuperTouch was posted days before Shepard Fairey’s opening at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston-- it ended up as a headline on Shepard Fairey’s ObeyGiant website within minutes of being posted by J O’Shea on SuperTouch. The article by Jamie O’Shea opened with the following introduction:

“As underground art phenomenon Shepard Fairey’s first major museum retrospective prepares to open at the Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston on February 6th, we feel the need to address some of the vicious and unfounded rumors surrounding the originality of Shepard’s artwork that have been floated online in recent years. Though written by a variety of different detractors for a questionable array of reasons, the common thread binding them all—aside from a thinly masked veneer of obvious envy in most cases—is a nearly ubiquitous lack of understanding of the artist’s use of appropriated imagery in his work and the longstanding historical precedent for this mode of creative expression.”.

The introduction alone is a vehicle for damage control and a source for fostering ideas of conspiracy. Again, it should be noted that the SuperTouch article was published on the same day that Dan Wasserman posted an article titled ‘How Phony is Shepard Fairey?’ on the Boston Globe website. Wasserman’s article focused on Mark Vallen’s criticism of Shepard Fairey-- which Vallen had posted in 2007. One could say that the SuperTouch article was more of a response to Wasserman's article than it was to Vallen's critique itself. Damage control.

The main target of Jamie O’Shea’s conspiracy theory is Mark Vallen-- an artist who has been critical of Shepard Fairey’s ethics for years. Oddly enough, Vallen’s article-- titled Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey-- ranks on the first page of Google searches for ‘Shepard Fairey‘. In other words, many people have read the article long before Wasserman mentioned it on the Boston Globe website-- dare I say that could suggest that perhaps many people agree with the views of Mark Vallen? In other words, one could suggest that many desire to see Shepard Fairey take responsibility and to be accountable when he is wrong.

Jamie O’Shea and other Shepard Fairey conspiracy theorists would have you believe that only a handful of people are critical of Shepard Fairey. After all, O’Shea and SuperTouch-- where Shepad Fairey is also an author-- suggests that Mark Vallen and other “detractors” have orchestrated a smear campaign due to being jealous or bitter of Shepard Fairey. Are we to assume that Shepard Fairey is beyond criticism? Are all art critics jealous or bitter if their words about an artist are harsh? Are we to believe that only a small band of individuals question the ethics of Shepard Fairey? To that I would say-- making demons out of people who are critical of Shepard Fairey’s art and practice is not exactly the best way to defend the validity of his work-- or the importance of your business.

Jamie O’Shea has long been a crucial figure in the hype surrounding Shepard Fairey. Thus, his words come off more as concern for his investment than anything else. To put it bluntly, Jamie O’Shea does not want people to view Shepard Fairey as an unethical artist-- an artist who steals from minority artists or social causes for his own financial gain and a stairway to fame as suggested by Mark Vallen. O’Shea and others want to foster the idea that Shepard Fairey is a hero of the people and a revolutionary of visual art. Thus, it makes sense that he and others would want to chip away at Vallen's character and his critique-- to silence criticism of Shepard Fairey before it grows out of hand.

When thinking of this one must put everything in perspective-- indeed, one must question everything. Jamie O’Shea was one of the first individuals to publish reviews and interviews with Shepard Fairey. He has also curated and co-curated exhibits involving Shepard Fairey's art.
Different sources state that O’Shea works as an art consultant for corporate collections-- connecting artists in his favor with corporate art collections. If people question the authenticity of Shepard Fairey they may very well question the authenticity of Jamie O’Shea's opinion and business ventures. Thus, it makes sense that he would want to spread conspiracy theories about a "widespread and baseless internet campaign to smear Shepard Fairey," in order to combat criticism of Shepard Fairey-- his interest, investment, and product.

Consider this an open debate about the responsibility-- or lack thereof -- of Shepard Fairey and the conspiracy theories that place him in a ‘victim’ role. Consider it an open debate about the commercialization of street art-- feel free to discuss ethics-- or the lack thereof. By all means, comment if you feel that my approach is not ethical or responsible.

Links of Interest:

Was Shepard Fairey Arrested To Embarrass The Mayor of Boston? - A First Hand Account -- Wooster Collective: a celebration of street art
http://www.woostercollective.com/2009/02/shepard_faireys_arrest_in_boston_a_first.html
Finally: Shepard Fairey Conspiracy Porn -- Bostonist
http://bostonist.com/2009/02/10/shepard-fairey-bpd-conspiracy.php

How Phony is Shepard Fairey? -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/outofline/2009/02/how_phony_is_shepard_fairey.html
Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey: A Critique by Artist Mark Vallen
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm

The Medium Is The Message: Shepard Fairey And The Art of Appropriation -- SuperTouch
http://www.supertouchart.com/2009/02/02/editorial-the-medium-is-the-message-shepard-fairey-and-the-art-of-appropriation/#respond

Jamie O’Shea Obeys Shepard Fairey by Taking Jabs at Mark Vallen -- Myartspace Blog
http://www.myartspace.com/blog/2009/02/jamie-oshea-obeys-shepard-fairey-by.html

I Predict a Fairey Right? -- Beautiful Crime
http://beautifulcrime.com/news/i-predict-a-fairey-riot/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com

The Value of Art: Recession and the Rise of Art

What attracts us to art exhibits featuring key players in contemporary art? What attracts us to art fairs that involve millions of dollars worth of art? Could it be that art appreciation today is defined by dollar signs-- the monetary value of the work rather than the meaning? Does money come before the idea? If this is the case, how is art to be appreciated during times of recession? Furthermore, how is art to be appreciated during a borderline depression? Or does money play little part in our interest?

Are we still captivated by the intrinsic value of art-- or must specific pieces be attached to a lengthy and “successful” sales history in order for it to have value within our collective conscious? Needless to say, the current status of the art world-- closed galleries, rescheduled art fairs-- has me thinking. During the ‘best of times’ does our sense of art appreciation falter only to be rediscovered during times of economic turmoil? I think so.

The irony of the current economic situation is that we have seen it before-- perhaps not on this scale in our lifetime, but we have seen it. If you look at recent art history you will find that select artists rise during times of financial turmoil and recession. One could say that people, in general, focus on meaning rather than the value of art during these times. In other words, it appears that specific artworks are more apt to make a connection with the public during times of financial struggle. Thus, I have no doubt that a handful of artists who are currently living on the edge for their art will eventually be the key players of tomorrow.

The cycle continues. Those who rise today will first be acknowledged for the meaning behind their art only to be embraced later down the road-- once the economy recovers-- for its high monetary value and strict
marketability. After all, when we read about important works it often seems that the money involved with the art or the wealth of the artist himself or herself plays a significant role in how the art is reported on. It begs the question-- why do we lose the philosophical or emotional connection with art once the economy is stable?

There is a direct connection between recession and the elevation of art. Look at the recent past-- the YBAs found their voice during a time of recession. Indeed, the likes of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin went on to define the contemporary art scene in the United Kingdom. Before that many artists, including Andy Warhol, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock and a long list of art world ‘titans’, were launched into the mainstream during the span of three recessions.-- 1953-1954, 1957-1958, and 1960-1961 respectfully. Their work was embraced during times of uncertainty.

Many of the artists from those years-- living or deceased-- have went on to define how contemporary art is perceived while their works have dominated the art market at the same time. One could say that their art formed the foundation for the contemporary art market that we have come to know. Unfortunately, when we read about their work we are more apt to find articles that are focused on money rather than meaning. Take for example an article I read about James Rosenquist recently-- the author had to throw in the fact that his work has sold for millions-- as if that is why we should value Rosenquist as an artist. The same can be said for artists who made their mark during recession in the early 1980s-- Jean-Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, Francesco Clemente, among others.

It appears that recession creates the perfect condition for specific artists to rise to the next level due to ideas and meaning that are embraced during times of economic woe. The question-- is meaning lost once the economy recovers and the art that resonated during the time of struggle becomes more about monetary value than its philosophical or emotional value? When art is thought of on terms of financial gain does it lose meaning as far as art appreciation is concerned? Does the financial aspect of art foster the idea that only art involving high monetary value is of cultural significance?

Consider this an open debate about the value of art and the connection between the rise of art-- and specific artists-- during recession compared to the market for their art when the economy is stable.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com
London Calling
www.myartspace.com/londoncalling

Art Market Reflection and Predictions for 2009

Predicting the future of the art market is always a gamble. After all, very few were prepared when the ills of the economy pulled the floor out from under the feet of gallerists and other art dealers. Not long ago people reported on how the art market was unstoppable-- now it is obvious to everyone that more than a few wrenches have been thrown into the art marketing machine. Art market insiders predict that average art prices, specifically at art auctions, will drop another 40% before the end of 2009.

However, it has been suggested that the issue really involves prices returning to where they should have been in the first place-- allegations of price inflation that occurred during the ‘boom’ have stirred debate. Thus, one could say that the crippled economy is forcing dealers-- and artists-- to face the realization of a market that had been artificially matured. The irony is clear-- the unwarranted increases in art prices may have an end result of decreasing the market value of those involved far beyond where they should have been in the first place.

The problem with examining the art market-- just like any market-- is that eventually fingers are pointed. Very few are willing to accept blame. Some blame the artists while others blame the art dealers. To be fair I would say that both sides played a role-- especially with regards to works by living artists. After all, living artists normally communicate about pricing with their dealers. The problems fall on the shoulders of the living-- you can’t very well point fingers at Andy Warhol and other deceased artists if the prices for their art were higher than they should have been in recent years.

At the same time, what can one art dealer do if another art dealer-- who is not directly associated with the artist-- increases prices? In that scenario the only way to sustain the market for the artists work is to match the price. Fluctuations in prices from one dealer to the next is not a good thing. Thus, I think part of the inflation in pricing occurred due to the rat race of staying on the ball, so to speak. In that case, more blame falls on the auction houses than traditional art dealers since they spurred some of those increases.

That said, I suppose you can question art dealers who fed a youthful market by pushing recent graduates into the five or six digit range before they had even cleared out their art school studio space. In the years leading up to the crash it was common to read about gallerists dropping mid-career artists in favor of ’hot’ emerging artists. I recall people describing it as an assembly line of raw-inexperienced talent--- profitable and ’fresh’.

The thing to keep in mind is that all the finger pointing in the world does not matter now. The market is what it is. All that is left is to hang in or cash out. Those destined for obscurity will surely find it now while those destined for something more will eventually rise once the market skies are clear. Old faces may become new faces in the art market-- New faces may never be seen again. Doors will open while others close-- careers will bloom while others fold.

My predictions for 2009:

*Art dealers will not be so eager to take on 20-something artists simply to create hype.

*Mid-career artists will be dusted off and re-established within the art market.

*Gallerists will focus more on selling quality art instead of selling the experience of the exhibit itself. In other words, there will be no room for slacking. That goes for artists as well.

*Hype, as suggested above, will not have the same level of dominance.

* Defecating on a plate while eating jelly beans and waving a political sign will not make you famous.

*There will be an increase in war themed art as men and women return home from Iraq. They will no doubt open up about what exactly they experienced and what exactly they fought for.

*Art world politics will become even more political with aspects of government involvement-- at least in the US. (Which could be bad depending on how it is done.).

*Art dealers will explore alternative markets for selling art-- such as eCommerce and selling art online.

*Independent artists will continue to utilize the World Wide Web for exposure, marketing, and networking. In connection with this there will be an increase in co-op gallery ventures and other alternative spaces.

*The political, economic, and social climate will spur an increase in art movements based on those specific issues. Things are chaotic today-- drastic change will occur… the perfect conditions for art movements to take off and make a statement about our times.

*With the above in mind, the public will expect artists, gallerists, and curators to be more responsible for the message conveyed in the work they display in spaces that are open to the public.

*The public will expect works of art to be authentic. There will be an increase in interest concerning copyright, orphan works legislation, and other issues facing the art community.

Links of Interest:

Public Knowledge and the Orphan Works Bill -- Myartspace Blog

Brad Holland Responds to Public Knowledge -- Myartspace Blog

Appropriation Art and the Internet -- Myartspace Blog

Art Space Talk: Martin Trailer (Concerning Orphan Works Legislation) -- Myartspace Blog

Shepard Fairey: Obey Copyright -- Myartspace Blog

Controversial Art Damaged by Protestors -- Myartspace Blog

ArtTactic: Art Market May Take Years to Recover -- Myartspace Blog

The Arts Under Obama: A Brainstorming Session -- Winkleman Blog

Why the art world should care about the old folks -- Guardian

Art Auction Prices May Fall 40% in 2009, Larasati Chief Says -- Bloomberg

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

ArtTactic: Art Market May Take Years to Recover

ArtTactic Ltd reports that confidence levels in the contemporary art market have fallen 81 percent since May 2008 and may take between three and five years to recover. ArtTactic provides unbiased art advice, analysis and market research for art collectors, art professionals, art funds, and art institutions.

The recent ArtTactic survey includes a new “Survival Rating” of artists who respondents believe will be considered of high importance within 10 years time. German artist Gerhard Richter was at the top of the survival list followed by Jeff Koons and Cindy Sherman. Damien Hirst was lucky-- he was able to land the seventh position on the list of ten ’high importance’ artists. Others were not so lucky.

The ArtTactic survey rated Jake & Dinos Chapman, David Salle, and Franz Ackermann as current high importance artists who will least likely to be considered of high importance by 2019. Needless to say, ArtTactic feels that when the dust over the market settles the market, as we know it, will be a very different place.

ArtTactic became the first company to ever develop an Art Market Confidence Indicator, an indicator of the market based on feedback that is now closely followed by individuals who follow the art market. ArtTactic’s Western Art Market Confidence Indicator dropped to 10.5 from 56, the lowest level reached since the survey was introduced in May of 2005.

ArtTactic’s findings were supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors survey. RICS is a professional body representing art appraisers, auctioneers, and real-estate surveyors in the United Kingdom.

Key points of the ArtTactic survey:

-Confidence hits rock bottom: US & European Contemporary Art Market Confidence Indicator drops 81% from May 2008.

- Recovery will take years: 52% of the respondents believe it will take more than 3 years for the market to start picking up, and more than half of these believe it could take more than 5 years.

- Bottom falls out of the high-end of the market: The confidence has weakened in all of the higher price segments since May 2008

Links of Interest:

Art Market May Take 3-5 Years to Recover, Survey Company Says -- Bloomberg

www.arttactic.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Art Space Talk: Alan Bamberger

Alan Bamberger is an art consultant, advisor, author, and independent appraiser specializing in research, appraisal, and all business and market aspects of original works of art, artist manuscript materials, art-related documents, and art reference books. He has been selling art since 1979 and rare and scholarly art reference books since 1982, and has been consulting and appraising for artists, galleries, businesses, organizations and collectors since 1985.

Bamberger has appeared live on CNN's Daywatch, KTLA's Making It (Los Angeles), and KRON-TV in San Francisco, and answered art business questions on New York City Cable TV's Project Art Show. He's been quoted in numerous media including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Great Britain's Guardian Unlimited, Marketplace (National Public Radio), the Los Angeles Times, New York Newsday, the San Francisco Chronicle, Esquire, ESPN Magazine, Real Simple, ARTnews, The Arizona Republic and Wired and has been featured in the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Examiner, Kiplinger's Personal Finance, Your Money, and other publications.

Bamberger is the founder of ArtBusiness.com-- a website that provides complete art services, art appraisals, art price data, news, articles, and market information to art collectors, artists, and fine arts professionals

Brian Sherwin: Alan, you are an art consultant, author, advisor, and independent appraiser. You specialize in appraisal, research, and the business and marketing aspects of original works of art. You also have extensive knowledge of artist manuscript materials, art-related documents, and art reference books. Can you give us a brief history of your background in this field?

Alan Bamberger: I began in the art business around 1980 selling old paintings and other original works of art. During that time, I would purchase reference books for my library. That gradually evolved into purchasing duplicate reference books and selling them to other dealers and collectors. After a while, I moved almost entirely into selling rare and hard-to-find reference books on the fine and decorative arts.

My education around art comes not only from books and catalogues, but also from artists, art gallery owners, and other fine arts professionals. During this time, I also became a member of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America and the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers.

BS: You maintain www.artbusiness.com. Can you give us a brief history of the site? Why did you decide to create it?

AB: My original idea for www.artbusiness.com back in the late 1990s was to use it as an online portfolio of sorts-- to show samples of my writing-- in hopes of getting more writing jobs. Putting the writing samples online was easier than sending them in the mail (how writers used to query publications back in the good old days). Anyway, I realized when viewing my website statistics that quite a few people were finding the site and reading my writings, so I started putting more and more of my articles online. That's pretty much how things started.

BS: You have written about the art business since 1983. How has the art market changed in your opinion since that time? Would you say that it is easier to be successful as an artist today due to the advent of the Internet?

AB: I think the main ways the art business has changed are that knowledge is easier to come by and, more significantly, that artists can expose their work internationally with little or no effort. This is particularly advantageous for artists who do not live in major national or international art centers, but have talent. And some artists manage to get known simply by establishing online presences. This was not possible just a few short years ago.

BS: What advice do you have for artists who strive to gain exposure online? Do you have any marketing tips for artists who are focused on selling art online?

AB: A few quick tips-- price your art, have plenty of contact information, make your art easy to buy (accept credit cards, Paypal, etc), don't show a lot of sold work, show your most recent work, don't show a lot of old work (particularly if your current art is very different). I have several articles for artists online about how to approach internet selling like this one for example-- www.artbusiness.com/webworks.html.

BS: What about art collectors? Do you have any general advice for art collectors concerning buying art online?

AB: Know what you're buying, know who you're buying from, don't buy big name art at online auctions like eBay unless you are an expert in whatever artists you're shopping for, make sure you can return whatever you buy if it turns out to look different than it looked online, read and get informed about what you're buying before you buy-- not after.

BS: Can you point our readers to any specific online articles that they may find of interest concerning these topics?

AB: I have plenty of articles for collectors online here-- www.artbusiness.com/collectors.html. And my book, The Art of Buying Art, covers everything collectors need to know about how to buy art. It's easy to understand and anyone who buys art can benefit from it.

BS: Giving the state of the economy… do you have any general advice for artists, gallerists, and others who are focused on the business of art?

AB: Selling art is more challenging now than it's been in quite some time. It's important for anyone selling art to demonstrate the value of that art-- not necessarily in terms of dollars, but also in terms of meaning, significance, and similar intangibles. People buy art because it enriches, beautifies, and enhances their lives. Be able to show how your art (or art that you're selling) does that. Here's an article that kind of sums it all up-- www.artbusiness.com/osoquunewec.html.

BS: Speaking of the economy, there has been some debate online concerning the potential for brick & mortar galleries embracing the internet for an alternative way of selling art. Many traditional art sellers scoffed at the idea of selling art online during the 1990s. Have you observed a change in opinion concerning this as far as gallerists are concered?

AB: Yes. The large majority of galleries have online presences. In fact, some galleries and dealers sell almost as much and sometimes even more art online than they do out of their physical galleries. An online presence is particularly beneficial to galleries that sell art by artists with national or international followings-- avid collectors scour the market for the art they collect, and the internet is one of the best ways to get a quick overview of who's selling what.

BS: Speaking of the art world in general, do you have any concerns about the art world at this time? For example, there has been a lot of debate concerning the potential of orphan works legislation being passed. What are your thoughts on that issue?

AB: I can understand both sides on this one, but I am for the legislation because of the incredible difficulties entailed in figuring who, if anybody, holds the rights to reproduce so many works of art from all nationalities and all time periods. Of course, the person reproducing these works must do due diligence in this regard before reproducing them. That must be made very clear in any such legislation-- and the penalties should be significant for those who don't.

BS: I understand that you are a member of the Association of Online Appraisers. Can you give our readers some insight into the goal of that organization?

AB: The goal of this or any appraiser organization is to educate, promote uniform standards of appraisal, and to give everyone access to professional appraisers, not only for art, but for all forms of personal property, and not only for purposes of insurance, inheritance, donation, and the like, but also for buying and selling. For example, a gallery might represent a work of art as being a bargain when in fact it is overpriced.

When you don't know that much about what you're buying, it's always a good idea to consult an appraiser first-- for a no-conflict-of-interest second opinion. Likewise, private parties who are considering selling art need professional opinions as to how much it's worth before offering it for sale.

BS: What about other organizations and projects that you are involved with. Would you like mention anything about them?

AB: My main project these days is comprehensively documenting the San Francisco art scene with exhaustive coverage of gallery shows. It not only helps artists and collectors now, but I also intend it to be an archive for the future. This May will mark the sixth anniversary of this project which I began in 2003. Over the years, I have also volunteered my time and knowledge to help several local non-profit organizations.

BS: Where can our readers purchase your books online?

AB: You can read brief chapter summaries of The Art of Buying Art here-- www.artbusiness.com/basynop.html
You can order a signed copy of the book here-- www.artbusiness.com/bookorder.html

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your profession? Any closing advice for buying or selling art online?

AB: As someone who knows a lot about art and how the art business operates, I can't stress enough that when you're just starting out as a buyer (or seller), talk to professionals, educate yourself, and get second opinions as required before going ahead with purchases or putting art up for sale in the marketplace. It is simply too easy to make very expensive mistakes when you don't have that much experience.

In closing, I'd like to say that it is my great privilege and pleasure to work with as well as serve artists, dealers, collectors, and creative people everywhere. My main goals in life are to make art more accessible to everyone, and to help everyone-- buyers, sellers, and artists alike-- to do whatever it is that they want to do.... better.

You can learn more about Alan Bamberger by visiting the Artbusiness.com website-- www.artbusiness.com. You can read more of my interviews by visiting the following page-- www.myartspace.com/interviews

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Art Prices Drop. Galleries Close Doors. Auction House Cuts Jobs.

You don’t need to be an economist to realize that the financial skies will not be clear anytime soon. Could it be that the worst is yet to come? The auction house Christie’s International thinks so. Their plan of action? Simple. The notable auction house is in the process of making staff reductions as a result of poor auction performance in recent months. Staff reductions at a major auction house is just another sign of the chaotic times we are in as far as the economy is concerned.

The dire state of the economy has forced many artists to step outside the unwritten rules of the art market. Even established artists, such as Damien Hirst , have lowered prices drastically while embracing alternative marketing plans that go against the traditional schematics of the art market. Art dealers have suffered as well.

Many gallery doors have closed since the fall of the economy. I’ve been told that some art dealers and their staff have placed bets on which gallery will close next-- all the while fearing that they may be next. There seems to be no end to the concern that art professionals from all levels of the art world have due to the financial crisis.

The fact that Christie’s is showing signs of struggle makes it very clear that the decade-long art market boom has officially ended. Now is the time for artists, art dealers, and even auction houses to rethink the ways in which they sustain themselves during turbulent times. Indeed, the protective bubble surrounding the art market has popped .

The official statement from Christie’s to the press:
“Effective January 12, 2009, we have begun a company-wide reorganization review, which includes the possibility of significant staff reductions, not renewing many consultants’ contracts and the continuation of other cost reduction initiatives, that will ensure we remain competitive and profitable in 2009. Any staff reductions that might be necessary will be implemented globally in accordance with local regulations and in as considered and timely a manner as is possible.”

Links of Interest:

Christie’s Begins Massive Layoffs -- Art Fag City

Christie’s Cuts Costs as Art Market Slows -- New York Times

Christie's announces 'significant' job cuts -- International Herald Tribune

Christie’s to Cut Jobs as Crisis Cuts Auction Sales -- Bloomberg

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
myartspace.com
www.myartspace.com
New York Art Exchange
www.nyaxe.com

Damien Hirst is Looking Ahead

Damien Hirst is Looking Ahead. Image via Portfolio

Damien Hirst is considered to be one of the most tactful artists living today as far as establishing a market is concerned. While the ethics of his practice can be debated one must admit that Hirst is a capable businessman-- his actions have enforced the idea that an artist can take his or her career into his or her own hands by utilizing alternative marketing paths, such as selling art online or at auction without the help of gallery representation. However, it may very well be that recent economic struggles have finally caught up to the world renowned British artist and his business model-- at least that is what the skeptics are saying. Could they be wrong?

The media has reported on several stories that reveal the current status of the ‘dismal’ financial situation facing Damien Hirst. For example, there are reports that Hirst has dismissed 20 to 24 assistants from his production company. Further reports include information stating that only two of eight works by Hirst sold at Art Basel Miami Beach less than a month ago. However, one must remember that Hirst has been making his own rules as of late-- so it could be that he does not care about these recent losses. After all, Hirst is by no means a starving artist.

As mentioned, Damien Hirst is a very business-minded artist. Before counting Hirst out realize that he recently lowered his own prices. In fact, Hirst has stated that he is looking forward to selling his work for affordable rates within the context of recent global economic woes. He has already reduced the price of some works by half. Hirst has also said that he is looking at more realistic prices in general. Thus, it seems to me that Hirst is learning as he goes. When faced with a tough market one must learn to adapt, true?

Hirst is aware of this. As a businessman and entrepreneur he is very aware of what is needed in order to sustain his market during stages of economic strife. Hirst recently stated, "If I want to sell new work, I'll price it lower. If people have got less money, you can either just shut your door and say, 'Screw everybody', or I can wait until everyone can afford my work or price it cheaper." Thus, you can't measure the success of Damien Hirst with traditional concepts of art world success. After all, Hirst is exploring different markets in order to sustain his art dynasty, so to speak.

Do you need an example of how committed Damien Hirst is to exploring the market for his art? Look to his association with Levi’s Jeans for the answer. The artist is working with Levi’s Jeans in order to produce a limited edition collection of clothing featuring themes that are common in his art. The prices will start at $100 for tees and $250 for jeans. Hirst will utilize aspects of ecommerce when selling his line of clothing. Needless to say, Hirst is an artist who is prepared to brave the new frontier of the art market.

So what can we learn from Damien Hirst? Simple. When demand is down an artist must adapt to the art market as well as the global economy. As with any business... traditional models of commerce are meant to be broken.

Links of Interest:

Has Hirst’s Bubble Burst? [Portfolio]

Damien Hirst, of $100 Million Diamond Skull, Sees Prices Slump [Bloomberg]

Hirst Market in Decline, Say Researchers [ArtInfo]

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

www.nyaxe.com

Damien Hirst Lowers Prices and Slams a Price Tag on Pants

From "Show me the Money!" to "Let's make a deal!"

Damien Hirst has been shaking the foundation of the mainstream artworld more than usual as of late. First he bypassed his dealers in order to sell at auction-- breaking auction records along the way. Then he returned to one of his first dealers while keeping other dealers on the fence, so to speak. Now, with an artworld recession lurking in the background, he is openly stating that the market for his work and the art market in general is over-priced.

There is a bit of irony to his statements considering that critics of Hirst have long stated the same about the artist who has fetched millions for his work with relative ease. The artist, businessman, and entrepreneur is now looking forward to selling his work for affordable rates within the context of recent global economic woes-- reducing the price of some works by half. Hirst has also said that he is looking at more realistic prices in general, "If I want to sell new work, I'll price it lower. If people have got less money, you can either just shut your door and say, 'Screw everybody', or I can wait until everyone can afford my work or price it cheaper."

The Damien Hirst X Levi’s® collection

Do you need an example of how committed Damien Hirst is to his recent statements? Look to his association with Levi’s Jeans for the answer. The artist is working with Levi’s Jeans in order to produce a limited edition collection of clothing featuring themes that are common in his art. According to Art News Blog the prices will start at £55 for tees and £150 for jeans. When asked about the difference between expressing himself in art versus fashion Hirst replied, “I don’t see a difference really, anything done well is art, but this way a lot of people get to own my stuff and in a not too precious way.” It will be interesting to observe how Hirst utilizes the internet for his new ventures. He has a history of exploring eCommerce.

Links of Interest:

Damien Hirst Sees the Writing on the Gallery Wall

End of Days Watch: Damien Hirst Admits His Art is Overpriced

Damien Hirst Levi's Jeans and T-shirts

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

www.myartspace.com/blog

www.myartspace.com/interviews

Art and Recession: Time to Adapt

Art and Recession

It appears that the current status of the economy may have delivered the final blow over the success of the art market. Many had thought that the booming art market would continue to thrive regardless of the financial crisis facing the global economy. Today is a new day-- and it is not exactly better. There is great fear that the financial bubble surrounding the traditional aspects of the art market may finally burst. Could it be that the art world recession has finally come? Are we already there? These questions and more plague the thoughts of art dealers at this time. The need to adapt is now.

I'm not convinced that we are 'there' yet. However, if the art market continues to sour we will most likely witness artists forced into obscurity while gallery doors close for the last time. It has been estimated, as mentioned on this blog recently, that if a downward spiral occurs it could result in the closing of over 50 galleries in New York alone. If this happens careers-- artists, curators, and other art related professionals-- may stagnate and emerging artists will find traditional exhibit involvement to be even more difficult to accomplish.

For example, I’m already getting reports from emerging artists who have stated that exhibits that had been planned for months have now been cancelled. Insiders have also warned that major contemporary art fairs may be forced to hold off until the economy is more stable. It is very likely that the situation could turn into a waiting game. That said, I would not count the art market out just yet-- though it does pay to be wary and to learn to truly adapt to the situation by utilizing the technology of today.

These concerns are warranted due to a drop in transactions between art dealers and art buyers at recent major art fairs in the UK. In the US the art market has been delivered another blow due to major sales by Sotheby's and Christie's in New York that were millions of dollars below their lowest estimated prices. The brick & mortar galleries are having a tough time, the art fairs are having a tough time, and now the auction houses are having a tough time in this unstable market. Needless to say, the art market has dodged more than a few bullets and has taking a few hits in stride as the financial crisis unfolds. To put it bluntly, there is enough fear to go around, but there are also people putting up one hell of a fight to sustain the art market as best they can. The question is-- will the good fight be enough to keep the art market in the ring, so to speak?

It is no secret that the success of the art market is often only as strong as the status of the economy. The two walk hand-in-hand. If the economy is strong the art market is strong. The best example of this is the art market of the 1980s and how the art market had a harsh fall in the early 1990s. However, the thing to remember is that the art market always bounces back-- sometimes a little bit before the economy does. Also, the art market of today is far different than the art market of the early 1990s. Today the art market is truly global. That factor may help to sustain the art market when everthing is said and done.

Think of it this way-- the number of international collectors has drastically increased in recent years. There has also been an increase in younger art collectors compared to the recent past. Thus, one could say that the art market is down on one leg, but that does not mean that it is out for the count. Collectors from India, China, and young collectors throughout the world may serve as a lifeline. In that sense, I think that some galleries may learn to appreciate ecommerce and other marketing strategies that are considered unconventional by the blunt of the art world at this time-- such as utilizing online social networking for exposure and global reach.

In closing, when the market changes a good business person will learn to adapt to those changes. That involves more than just saying, "I can adapt". I know a lot of art dealers who claim to adapt, but in all honesty they do not. Key figures involved with the art market are being bombarded by questions concerning the financial crisis. At this rate I believe we will know some of the answers by the start of 2009.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Picasso Harlequin Withdrawn from Auction

A painting by Pablo Picasso has been withdrawn from a Sotheby's Impressionist and Modern art auction in New York. The painting, which is a 1909 work titled "Arlequin", was expected to fetch more than $30 million at auction. Sotheby's says that the owners withdrew the painting for personal reasons. However, critics have suggested that it was withdrawn due to the recent financial crisis that has shaken the foundation of the art market. The harlequin painting was owned by the late Italian born American surrealist painter Enrico Donati. Donati paid $12,000 for the painting in the 1940s. Is this a sign of what is to come?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Art Market Crisis: Galleries NEED to Embrace the Internet... and eCommerce!

Art Market Crisis: Galleries NEED to Embrace the Internet... and eCommerce!

One of the critical problems facing the art world is the fact that many art dealers continue to play by the rules of old during times of economic crisis. They often fail to adapt in a meaningful way and roll on as if nothing had happened. Unfortunately, something has happened-- the economy is in a state of peril. Current economic woes have cast a shadow over the art world. These concerns have turned to fear-- and that fear has turned to paranoia in some circles. Some have suggested that if the economy continues to worsen we will see hundreds of brick & mortar galleries close throughout the world. Thus, the time to adapt to this dire market is now! Art dealers need to accept and utilize alternative forms of commerce-- including eCommerce.

Businesses owners must truly adapt in order to sustain themselves during times of economic struggle. This translates to laying off staff, adjusting prices, OR taking some initiative by utilizing different paths of commerce that may be foreign to theie business structure. Selling art is a business-- when business is rough you either count your losses or close your doors. In other words, art dealers need to discover new ways to keep their doors open during difficult times. They need to take note of the positive change that eCommerce has spurred for other types of business. For many art dealers that will involve braving the art market frontier of the internet that has been ridiculed by certain circles of the art world since the 1990s. My opinion is that eCommerce may allow some galleries to keep their doors open during times of economic despair while offering alternative funding during the best of times. Art dealers must adapt to this extension of the global market.

Businesses have learned to adapt to specific market situations by utilizing the internet and eCommerce. Unfortunately, many art dealers tend to hide themselves within a protective bubble of fantasies that dictate that the structure of the art market is without fault and must never change. You can observe the attitudes created by that bubble in how certain circles of the art world have been stubborn about utilizing the internet and eCommerce. Certain individuals want the dynamics of the art market to be etched in stone. Unfortunately, that attitude is why many businesses fail in general. To put it bluntly, when it comes to business nothing is etched in stone.

In order to adapt to a difficult market a business must truly adapt. This is accomplished by exploring different manners of commerce. Lack of initiative, ambition, and the ability to accept changes in how business can be conducted has cast doom on many businesses and it is also why a gallery can end up closing its doors for the last time. This is why it is vital for art dealers to accept eCommerce in order to expand their market. With little effort an art dealer can introduce his or her represented artists to the global art market 24/7. That is the amazing thing about eCommerce-- when the gallery is closed for the night and the art dealer is sleeping a collector overseas may very well request to purchase a piece. From there being practical about secure payments and shipping are the only steps left within the context of the deal.

So how can art dealers utilize eCommerce in order to stabilize their business during difficult economic times? How can they obtain alternative cash flow in order to keep their doors open? It is simple really. By utilizing eCommerce meshed with social networking art dealers can represent more artists-- including emerging artists with affordable prices. An art dealer could technically represent hundreds of artists online with ease while focusing on his or her core artists in the physical gallery space. In other words, an art dealer can represent his or her core artists (primary representation) in the physical space of the gallery while representing others (secondary representation), as well as their core artists, online. This would allow art dealers to take on less established artists so that they can offer affordably priced art to the global market during hard economic times. It would also be a source of alternative income when the market is more stable. By utilizing the internet and eCommerce an art dealer can keep his or her business open to the world 24/7. The technology is here. Use it!

Links of Interest:

Do Galleries Need eCommerce?

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/do-galleries-need-ecommerce.html

eCommerce Can Work For Artists

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/ecommerce-can-work-for-artists.html

Why Art Sites Work

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/10/why-art-sites-work.html

Art and the Internet: The Artists Are Here. When will Galleries Participate?

www.myartspace.com/blog/2008/09/art-and-internet-artists-are-here-when_27.html

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

Elizabeth Peyton at the New Museum

Portrait of Poitr Uklanski (1996), Elizabeth Peyton via NYTimes

The Elizabeth Peyton exhibit at the New Museum features over 100 works by the artist. The exhibit, titled “Live Forever: Elizabeth Peyton”, will be open until January 11th, 2009. Her work can be found in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Centre Pompidou in Paris

Elizabeth Peyton emerged in the early 1990s along with painters such as Lisa Yuskavage and John Currin. Her portraits are often characterized by elongated, slender figures with androgynous features which at times resemble fashion illustration. These portraits generally portray individuals that Peyton has established personal rapport with or portraits linked to her imagination-- individuals she wished she had known. The exhibit at the New Museum involves examples of Peyton’s work from the last fifteen years.

Peyton’s celebrity subjects have included Liam Gallagher (Oasis), Keith Richards (The Rolling Stones), Kurt Cobain (Nirvana), John Lennon (The Beatles), and Eminem-- among others. Her portrait of John Lennon sold for $800,000 in 2006. Peyton is often credited for having revived the tradition of portrait painting during a time when portrait painting was considered by many to be “dead”.

Links of Interest:

Roberta Smith on Elizabeth Peyton’s Show at The New Museum [Badatsports]
Live Forever: Elizabeth Peyton [New Museum]
The Personal and the Painterly [NYTimes]

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Frieze Endures Cash Freeze

Foot traffic to the Frieze Art Fair was low this year-- so was the cash flow. There is no doubt that recent economic woes played a part in the cold market at the fair. However, many had expected worse going into the fair. Frieze did show that there is still a financial pulse in the art market even though the fair lacked the same collector involvement and cash flow as last year. The flame of art world stability is still flickering.

It has been suggested that the recent art-boom might be over due to the results at Frieze. In my opinion, that does not mean that another boom is not in the making. This is how every market works-- you have ups and downs. Based on what I’ve read about this years Frieze Art Fair it seems that the chips fell somewhere in the middle. However, the results did prove that the stability of the art market rides on the success of the economy as whole. The results are a reminder that during times of economic struggle every business, including galleries, must be willing to adapt to the market.

Art collectors are being more selective than they have been in recent years. There were no frenzied sales or rush for reserves at Frieze this year. Instead collectors scouted for bargains. The reduction in activity is not necessarily a bad thing. Some dealers admitted that they enjoyed the slower pace of this years Frieze. One dealer mentioned that she loathes the stampede approach that has dominated at past fairs. Another suggested that the key to success is keeping prices reasonable during periods of recession. In other words, art dealers need to adapt to the market. When the reality of the global market hits at home one must be willing to be realistic with prices and expectations. The flame of the global art market is not out yet.

For those who don’t know, Frieze is considered one of the world’s three most important contemporary art fairs alongside Art Basel in Switzerland in June and Art Basel Miami Beach in December.

Link of Interest:
www.friezeartfair.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

Auction House Phillips de Pury bought by Mercury Group

Simon de Pury, Chairman and Co-Founder of Phillips de Pury

Phillips de Pury, an auction house known for having a strong focus in the sale of contemporary art and photography, has been bought by Mercury Group. Mercury Group is a Russian luxury retail group that owns top shelf department stores selling Prada, Ferrari, Gucci, Rolex, Maserati, and other high end brand names. Simon de Pury will remain at the helm of the company as Chairman. The Chairman has stated that the “strategic partnership” with Mercury will allow the auction house “ to provide a unique platform to new and fast growing markets.”

Links of Interest:
Phillips auction house is sold [Wall Street Journal]

Russian Group Buys Auction House [NYTimes]

Russian Luxury Retailer Acquires Phillips [ArtInfo]

Fight Night: Basquiat's The Boxer at Christie's

Basquiat, his painting that is, will be facing a different market than his work did in the 1980s

I remember learning from my brother in the 1990s that Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica, is a collector of art. Thus, it came as no surprise to see him mentioned in the news concerning a piece from his collection. Ulrich plans to place an untitled Basquiat for sale in New York through Christie’s. The untitled paintings, unofficially known as ‘The Boxer’, depicts an African American boxer at the moment of victory. Symbols of death haunt the boxers success-- just as struggles and addictions haunted the relatively short life of Basquiat.

Untitled, (known unofficially as The Boxer) by Basquiat

The piece may very well represent the brutality of the ‘sweet science’ while offering social commentary about race relations at the same time. The painting will likely bring more financial success to Ulrich regardless of the meaning behind the painting. It is estimated that the painting may fetch as much as $16 million at auction. If that happens the sale will break the previous record-- $14 million-- for a Basquiat painting at auction. In the end the late Basquiat's work will land a knockout punch over the market. Place your bets.

Links of Interest:
Metallica Drummer to Sell Basquiat ‘Boxer’ [New York Times]

Metallica Drummer Puts $12 Million `Boxer’ Basquiat Up for Sale [Bloomberg]

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Senior Editor

www.myartspace.com

UK’s National Portrait Gallery wants Marc Quinn’s Blood…

Self (1991) by Marc Quinn, via Culture Loves Us

I learned from ArtObserved that the National Portrait Gallery desires Marc Quinn‘s blood-- or should I say ‘Self‘. White Cube Gallery has offered the most recent version of Self to the National Portrait Gallery for £350,000 even though the open market value for the piece is quoted at £1.5 million. The National Portrait Gallery has been able to secure £150,000 in order to acquire the ‘blood head’. Thus, the National Portrait Gallery will need to come up with £200,000 in order to have Marc Quinn’s blood where they want it. Time is short-- they only have until December 31st to finalize the deal.

Self (1991) is considered to be Quinn’s signature piece. One could say that it launched his rise into the upper levels of the art world. For those who don’t know, Self is a frozen sculpture of the artist's head made from 9.5-- though some sources state 10-- pints of his own blood. Quinn secured the raw material-- in this case his own blood-- from his body over a period of 5 months. The original Self was bought by Charles Saatchi in 1991 for a reputed £13,000.

I realize that I’ve been rather harsh to Marc Quinn lately-- ok, maybe really harsh , but his Self is a piece that I actually admire. In my opinion, Self has a universal appeal that a golden statue of a fading cover girl will never have.

Links of Interest:

National Portrait Gallery criticised over purchase of Marc Quinn’s Blood Head [TimesUK]

National Portrait Gallery Raises Money for Self-Portrait Made From Frozen Blood [ArtInfo]

Museum needs £200,000 for Marc Quinn’s blood portrait [The Art Newspaper]

Take Care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Warhol's Skulls Series will Spearhead Sotheby's October Contemporary Art Sale

Andy Warhol, (1928-1987), Skulls. 5,000,000—7,000,000 GBP. Photo: Sotheby's.

Sotheby's will follow its record-breaking series of Contemporary Art sales in recent years with its October Contemporary Art sale. The event is scheduled to coincide with the Frieze Art Fair. The sale opens on the 20th of October and will include a selection of Andy Warhol’s iconic Skulls series (est. £5,000,000-£7,000,000). The Skulls series is known for its striking commentary on death and mortality. Sotheby’s senior international specialist Oliver Barker said, “The optimism and vitality of the colours only serve to underline the transience of life pitted against the omnipotence of death. Warhol’s point – ever concise and brilliantly pithy – is that even death, the nemesis of humankind, becomes mere lurid mundanity when perceived through repetition and familiarity.”

Art and the Internet: The Artists Are Here. When will Galleries Participate?

Art and the Internet: The Artists Are Here. When will Galleries Participate?

The internet has quickly changed the way that we think about commerce in general. Anything you can think of can be purchased online. Today, businesses can be made or broken depending on the influence they have online. The art market and the selling of art is no exception as far as good business is concerned. Years ago predictions about the influence the internet would have on the art market were often scoffed at due to the early failure of e-commerce involving art. However, much has changed since those early years and several artists and art sites-- with an entrepreneur spirit-- have went on to sell millions of dollars worth of art since that early bust. One can find story after story of artists who struggled in the brick & mortar gallery scene only to carve out their future online by utilizing the potential that the internet provides. Blogs, auction sites, and art sites with e-commerce capabilities have given artists the tools they need in order to market themselves on their own terms without the need of traditional gallery involvement. The internet is here to stay and artists will continue to benefit from it. The question is… when will the traditional galleries and art dealers catch up?

It seems that with each passing month the press notes the fact that even the traditional structure of art marketing is changing as galleries and other aspects of the art world rush to catch up with what they observed as a doomed aspect of the market early on. The changes brought on my the internet-- concerning the buying and selling of art-- has been written about in major newspapers and art magazines. However, there are still certain aspects of the art world that has been slow to embrace these changes and the benefits they offer. Is e-commerce the market for the future as far as the buying and selling of art is concerned? That question may make an art critic, art dealer, or gallery owner laugh. However, one thing is for certain, it certainly seems that it has made an impact-- at least in the careers of artists who have embraced it.

People have called this change the democratization of the art world in that the buying and selling of art is within the reach of all artists-- instead of the relatively small number who are lucky enough to have traditional gallery representation. Self-representing artists can technically avoid the gallery scene all together by focusing on their online efforts. However, there are also a number of represented artists who have also embraced the internet in order to open up new avenues of commerce as far as the sell of their art is concerned. This is a power that artists-- for the most part-- lacked before the advent of the internet. Artists can now alter their marketing path by flirting with e-commerce or pave a new path that goes beyond the traditional art market by fully embracing e-commerce.

My guess is that traditional galleries, and others who deal in art from a brick & mortar setting, will need to adapt to these changes in order to compete. They will always have their place within the market as far as integrity goes, but tradition does not always equal continued success. As it stands, it is possible for an artist to make a better living selling his or her art online than the living he or she would make through traditional gallery representation. Artists combining both marketing structures will no doubt have the greatest benefit-- even if they are viewed as rogues by their peers who disregard the influence of the internet.

What I enjoy about this recent boom in e-commerce involving art and the many ways that artists have adapted to it is the fact that artists-- in general-- appear to be more open about discussing their work. For example, it is common for artists to discuss their thoughts, process, and methods on blogs. Art collectors and others who appreciate art benefit from this exchange. Artist/bloggers tend to give information that appeals to collectors by making the experience of purchasing art online personal even if no direct contact is made. Artists are able to keep in contact with past buyers in a personal way by blogging about their work and keeping a contact list of those collectors in order to send out new information. That exchange is remarkable. The end result-- due to e-commerce-- is an art market that benefits artists and informs collectors about the artists they are considering buying from.

Instead of focusing on the traditional art marketing structure, which often involves up to 50% commission and the burden of living in a city with great expense, artists online can avoid commission all together or discover a much lower commission by utilizing art sites that attract art collectors with their site traffic and the security of the e-commerce capabilities they provide. Artists can embrace this new avenue of art marketing from the comfort of their home no matter where home may be. In that sense, aspects of the traditional art market structure no longer has dominance as far as the success or failure of an artist is concerned. To put it bluntly, art dealers and gallery owners no longer have direct control over the ability of an artist to advance his or her career nor do they have the power they once held as to how successful an artist can be based on representation and exhibits. The ambition of the individual now dictates success or failure.

Traditional galleries and art dealers will always have their place in that they will continue to have access to a tight network of press and influential collectors who may or may not have a presence online. In a sense, they will always play a role in who enters the history books due to press and the acknowledgment that is rooted in it. For example, the art magazines will always cover brick & mortar exhibits in the hubs of the art world no matter what. One could say that the traditional art market will always influence the perception the public has about specific artists and their role within the context of art history. With that said, as the internet expands so will the consideration for what is historic and meaningful. Art bloggers, like myself, are already picking up on that by featuring artists who have yet to be featured or reviewed in a major newspaper or art publication. Eventually those barriers may very well be broken even if the gatekeepers of old are able to hold back some of the flood of change. There is always room for some aspects of tradition, true?

Art dealers and galleries should take notice of the changes around them. It has been suggested that many dealers and gallery owners are not paying attention to the success of online art auctions, e-commerce art sites, and the ability artists have had to build their own careers by utilizing the internet. Very few traditional galleries with websites have e-commerce capabilities-- in fact, many gallery websites are horribly outdated compared to the standards of today and the expectations of tomorrow. The decision to not expand in an ever-changing market is either bold or foolish. In other words, if traditional galleries lose their standing it is due to being stubborn and not embracing the technology of today while everyone else is. Frankly, the same can be said for newspapers and art publications who discredit the changes that have occurred due to the internet.

History tells us that in the past certain aspects of the art world felt that the buying and selling of art online would never be in reach-- that it would not work because buyers are not able to see the art in person. Many art dealers and gallery owners feel that only mediocre art is sold online. I’ve overheard that prejudice during discussions about the validity of selling art online. However, I know artists who embrace both the traditional art market and the digital frontier of the art market-- artists who have sold art online for thousands of dollars while their work in a brick & mortar gallery remains mostly unsold. Thus, remarks about artists utilizing the internet being mediocre is a sign of ignorance or denial.

Today e-commerce involving art is obviously working and will continue to work. Especially in a time when gallery owners are reporting a decrease in traffic as far as exhibit openings are concerned. Some have suggested that the decrease is due to gas prices and other economic factors. In that sense, exploring what the internet can provide is a question of economics and keeping a roof over the art they represent. Thus, I would think that now is the time for traditional art dealers and gallery owners to take notice and to embrace the change. Unfortunately, most tend to be stubborn on the issue-- a choice that may very well hurt the artists they represent and their business as whole when everything is said and done. Artists continue to reap the benefits of e-commerce and the rewards of maintaining a social network online while the majority of art dealers and gallery owners remain gridlocked on the issue.

The art market is changing in many ways due to the internet. It is foolish to consider it as just another trend-- it is a reality. The influence of the internet and the capabilities that the internet offers, such as establishing a large network of contacts, is a reality that every successful business must accept in order to maintain that success. At some point traditional galleries may have to embrace social networking online or risk failure. For example, it has been suggested that there is a new wave of younger art collectors that have entered the market. These young collectors are internet savvy-- they have experience utilizing sites like www.facebook.com and www.myspace.com in order to keep in contact with their peers. That is an aspect of the market that artists have tapped into by utilizing social networking websites and enhanced personal websites. One must ask, why are the brick & mortar galleries behind?

The implications of social networking online concerning art and the buying and selling of art is straight forward-- it does not take a business degree to understand it or to explore it as part of a marketing plan. Thanks to the internet it is possible for artists-- or gallery owners-- to discover art collectors on social networking websites or to be discovered by that youthful-- and influential-- market. For example, social networking art sites like www.myartspace.com allow artists to build a network of fellow artists, collectors, and curators. Myartspace allows artists and gallery owners to keep track of one another and inform people in their myartspace network about their career growth and exhibitions. These connections have helped artists to be accepted into brick & mortar gallery exhibits that they would not have otherwise known about. Traditional galleries should take note of that and benefit from the connections that are within their reach.

Traditional galleries and art dealers can benefit from having a presence online as well. For example, art dealers and gallery owners can benefit from having free profiles on websites like Facebook, Myspace, and myartspace. By utilizing these websites an art dealer or gallery owner-- or staff person-- can establish a network of ‘friends’ which will result in free advertising for upcoming exhibits when said network is informed of the event. Having a social networking presence also allows art dealers and gallery owners to observe potential talent with ease. The ability to contact emerging artists or mid-career artists who are not currently represented by a brick & mortar gallery is reason enough for an art dealer or gallery owner to consider utilizing the internet as part of his or her business model. It is a way for them to keep their gallery fresh with new artists when there is space available. In a sense, the art dealer or gallery owner who utilizes the internet and social networking sites can tap into talent before other art dealers and gallery owners have the chance. Thus, it is my prediction that art dealers and gallery owners who embrace the internet may very well corner that aspect of the traditional art market by leaving their peers and rivals in the dust and confusion of ‘what was’.

In closing, artists from all walks of life-- both unknown and known to the traditional art market-- are taking responsibility for their own careers by utilizing the potential of the internet. They are reshaping the business structure of the art world by embracing e-commerce and social networking. Many are making a living, or better living, from that activity. Some artists who have never exhibited in New York, Chicago, or Miami have a better presence online than artists who have stuck to the traditional route of art marketing. In fact, some of the artists who are well-known in those centers of the art world are practically unknown online. You can scoff at that statement all you want, but the simple fact is that content is King and the internet is the King’s castle. Art dealers and gallery owners can do the same. One could say that they must embrace it for the sake of their artists. The time for wishful thinking about the ‘way things were’ has passed. Welcome to art commerce 2.0. Don’t you think it is time to participate?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Damien Hirst takes a shark-sized bite out of traditional galleries by taking a different marketing path

The Kingdom (lot 5, Evening sale)tiger shark, glass, steel, silicone and formaldehyde solution with steel plinth, 214 by 383.6 by 141.8cm., executed in 2008.

Sotheby's London is in the process of auctioning off 223 artworks by Damien Hirst directly from the studio of the artist. The Sotheby's London auction, titled Beautiful Inside My Head Forever, has caused much debate concerning the harm it could have on the primary market. Some traditional galleries and supporters of traditional galleries have been in an uproar over the influence that an auction house can have on the art market. The success of the first night has made their concern a blunt reality.

Hirst has played his part in fueling the fire. While he has stated that he will never stop working with galleries he has also went on to say that selling at an auction house is a very “democratic way to sell art” and that it is a “natural evolution for contemporary art”. Hirst has made other statements that question the validity of traditional galleries and enforce the assumption that they cater to specific collectors. Such as, “There’s a hell of a lot of money in art - but the artists don’t get it”, and, “The artist doesn’t make any money, but everyone else does.”. Concerning the current auction, which ends today, Hirst stated that he embraces the challenge of selling his work in that way. For weeks critics and art world insiders have speculated about the risk that Hirst had taken with his career. Criticism aside, the result from last night was in Hirst’s favor. Will other artist heed his call?

Needless to say, hundreds of traditional gallery owners and supporters do not want the primary market to evolve in that manner. What Hirst observes as evolution is considered by many to be an unneeded and possibly dangerous revolutionary step against the long-standing system of art commerce. Only time will tell if that success will spur other artists to deal directly with auction houses instead of their galleries. One thing is for certain, some traditional galleries focusing on major artists are undoubtedly nervous about the success of Beautiful Inside My Head Forever.

My guess is that the plight facing traditional galleries will become worse before it gets any better. A good gallery owner learns to adapt to changes in the art market. However, galleries are faced with stiff competition in the market of today. Many feel that they have to scramble to be accepted into major art fairs before rival galleries ‘steal’ their slot. If the art fair is invitation only they wait on pins and needles hoping that they will be selected. Now they have even more competition to face in the form of auction houses representing the blunt of an artists career.

Traditional gallery owners are faced with questions about how they can remain valid in a market that appears to be dominated by nontraditional ways of conducting commerce involving art. It is as if there is a joint front against the way things were, so to speak. The question is… will this shift in art market dynamics be a positive change for artists? Or has Hirst bitten off more than what others will be able to chew?

Links of Interest:

www.sothebys.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin
Senior Editor
www.myartspace.com

Art Space News: Russian Art Boom at Sotheby's

"Bluebells", an avant-garde piece by Natalia Goncharova and the most valuable work sold.

Over the past two days Sotheby's in London sold 79.8 million dollars worth of Russian art. The work included Orthodox icons, Russian paintings, works in porcelain and Faberge works. The large some of money set a record as being the most successful sale of Russian art to date. The record was formerly held by Christie's International-- which broke the record in 2006.

Sotheby's record breaking Russian art sale is due in part to the growing economy in Russia-- where there has been an annual 15 percent increase in millionaires each year since the late 1990s. Many of Russia's wealthiest feel that it is their duty to buy pieces of their national heritage. This growth in wealth and nationalism has caused Russian art prices to skyrocket. You can learn more about Sotheby's by visiting the Sotheby's website: www.sothebys.com

Myartspace.com: New York, New York, 2007 Competition Winners!

Vincent Como
Minkyung Lee

The New York, New York 2007 Competition winners have been announced. The jurors-- James Rondeau of the Art Institute of Chicago, Jessica Morgan of the Tate Modern, and Steven Zevitas of New American Paintings --selected 50 finalists and then chose 4 winners from that pool. The winners are: Vincent Como, Minkyung Lee, Svetlana Rabey, and Masha Ryskin. Congratulations to all of the winners! A lot of great work was submitted, and, as always, there was not enough room to showcase it all. Thanks to the editorial staff and the jury for the fine work, and thanks to the sponsor, Blick Art Supplies, for their support. You can find out more by visiting the following link: http://www.myartspace.com/contestresults/nyny07/ . You can read my interviews with each of the winners by going to the following page: www.myartspace.com/interviews

Svetlana Rabey
Masha Ryskin

Art Space News: Will Mass MoCA Display Installation Without Consent?

A part of an installation is hoisted into a warehouse for a Christoph Büchel exhibit-- but is it really a show of his work?

A Federal Court judge has ruled that the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art can display materials assembled for Christoph Büchel's unfinished 'Training Ground for Democracy' installation. U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor issued his ruling following a hearing on motions filed by both Christoph Büchel and Mass MoCA. In granting Mass MoCA's motion to allow the museum to display the installation, Ponsor also denied Büchel's motion to prevent the piece from being displayed in the museum's football-field size Gallery 5 (one of the largest gallery spaces in the United States). Ponsor's decision was due to the amount of space needed for 'Training Ground for Democracy' to be adequately displayed.

Büchel's design for 'Training Ground for Democracy' was indeed large-- both in size and cost. The installation, which cost the museum over $160,000 to assemble, is based on a mock village used for U.S. military training. Staff members were to obtain the items Büchel needed for his design. His list of required items included a leaflet-bomb carousel, a two-story Cape Cod cottage, an old bar from a tavern, a vintage movie theater and various "banged-up" vehicles. The artist had requested nine full-size shipping containers and had planned to design a re-creation of Saddam Hussein's hiding place-- commonly referred to as the 'spider hole'. However, Büchel's plans were scrapped due to disputes with the museum in January.

By the end of January, well past the scheduled Dec. 16 opening of the exhibit, Büchel departed from the project-- which resulted in several negative exchanges between the artist and museum officials. Büchel claimed that the incident has damaged his reputation and refused to have his name associated with the unfinished project because museum workers had continued to work on the installation without him -- the museum argued that it has a responsibility to deliver a show to the public and that its reputation is on the line as well. Both parties ended up in court over the issue and critics have stated that the ruling, which favored the museum, is a blow to artists’ rights in general.

During the case Büchel accused the museum of un-professionalism and went on to state that the museum had interfered with his work and had wasted his time. The museum claims that Büchel agreed to a $160,000 budget and that the project had cost more than twice that by the time Büchel had left the project. However, Büchel claims that an amount was never agreed upon and that the installation should not carry his name or be displayed in public since he did not oversee its completion. The court ruled that Büchel's work was not protected under the (VARA) law and that the museum can display the installation as long as they mention that it is not complete.

Many artists, art critics, and art advocates have proclaimed that the museums actions are not in the best interest for art as a whole (which conflicts with the museums mission statement). The debate has opened the door for discussions on ethics in the art-world since Büchel is being forced to exhibit work that he does not consider finished or acceptable for public viewing. There is strong concern that this case will allow future works to be shown without consent and that the ruling has created a loop-hole in laws that have been created to protect artists and their work.

In my opinion the financial loss the museum endured was a poor business expense on their part. I don't feel that Christoph Büchel should be punished since there obviously was not a clear contract involved with the work situation. This case has made a villain out of the artist, but I would think that the museum is in the wrong as well since they should have made things more clear. It is crazy to throw that kind of money around without a contract. It appears that the project was flawed from the start.

Büchel conceived 'Training Ground for Democracy' and oversaw the installations construction until his departure in January. The key word is 'departure'-- Büchel left the project! So how can this piece be considered his work? Especially if he does not want his name associated with it? Is it his fault that the museum threw money at him left and right and that they tried to force him into deadlines? The fact that the museum lost thousands over this project does not matter to me... the fact that an artist has been forced to put his name on something that he does not see as finished does! Both sides should have cut their losses and moved on.

I'm not the only one annoyed by this ruling. Many people feel that the museum has broken trust with the artist, the viewing public, and art in general. There are real fears that this case could lead to more troubles for artists and exhibit spaces in the future. What do you think? Was the ruling fair? Should Büchel accept it and move on? Would you be OK with your art being exhibited unfinished? Is this a blow to artists’ rights in general? Do you think Mass MoCA should go on with the show? Discuss.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: SH Contemporary Art Fair in Shanghai

Nondescript (diptych) Year 2005 - Medium oil on canvas Size 55.1 x 110.2 in. By Qiu Xin

The opening night of the SH Contemporary Art Fair in Shanghai was a great success. Upon entering visitors were greeted by an artist who passed out a snack of rice with a hidden message among the grains-- "Rich Bastards Beware.'' Oddly enough, the 'fair-warning' by artist Rirkrit Tiravanija was warranted! For example, collectors paid as much as 150,000 yuan ($19,885) for the work of emerging artist Qiu Xin.

Collectors and critics know that China is a rising star in the global art market. The Shanghai Fair served as a test of that stability and of the vitality of China within the context of the global art market. On the opening night, leading Chinese artists made the highest sells when compared to artists from other nations. Those who attended agree that China's influence on the art market will not stop anytime soon.

Fair director Lorenzo Rudolph, a former director of Art Basel, and Swiss dealer Pierre Huber, the curator, organized more than 110 galleries from around the world. About a third of the galleries represented at the fair are from China and the rest were foreign galleries that focus on Chinese art. Event organizers made it clear that the fair would represent the best and brightest of artists from China.

An interesting aspect of the fair is the fact that the galleries from China, which represented artists working from within the country, out-sold the Chinese artists represented by foreign galleries. Again, this is a reflection of the art-boom in China. Collectors desire work from Chinese artists who live and work in China. I find it interesting how Chinese artists living outside of China were not as sought after by collectors.

Not everyone was pleased with the fair. Some viewers felt that the majority of the work, though fulfilling the purpose of spot-lighting contemporary Asian artists, catered toward the current trends that Western viewers enjoy-- trends that embrace kitsch mingled with sex. What can I say, sex sales! If the market for contemporary art from China continues to grow-- you had better be buying!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: 'Bling' Skull goes for Big Bucks

(The work, entitled "For the Love of God," is a skull cast in platinum and encrusted with 8,601 diamonds.)

Damien Hirst's latest piece-- "For the Love of God"-- sold last Thursday for 100 million dollars (75 million euros), a record price for work sold by a living artist. A spokeswoman for the White Cube gallery in London, where the piece had been on display, stated that the diamond-encrusted skull was sold to a group of anonymous investors. The skull has been hammered in the press and by onlookers for being nothing more than a form of 'bling'-- an overly expensive item that is nothing more than an indication of wealth.

Hirst remains best known for earlier conceptual works in which creatures including a shark and a cow were preserved in formaldehyde within glass tanks. Critics have stated that the British artist would not have a career had a "corpse not been involved"-- a statement referring to Hirst's earlier work, statements he has made to the press, and his most recent venture. Nevertheless, Hirst has earned a large following of supporters throughout his career regardless of the controversy that surrounds him.

The controversy over Hirst's art is not the only media bombardment that the artist has had to deal with. He once made the grave error of stating that the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States were like a work of art. On September 10, 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, Hirst said in an interview with BBC News Online:

"The thing about 9/11 is that it's kind of like an artwork in its own right ... Of course, it's visually stunning and you've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible - especially to a country as big as America. So on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing."

Due to public outrage, Hirst issued the following statement:

"I apologise unreservedly for any upset I have caused, particularly to the families of the victims of the events on that terrible day."

'Bling' or not-- the skull sold. What do you think? Does Hirst profit off of death and suffering? Does it matter if he does? Do you think there was a sense of passion behind the creation of "For the Love of God"? Or do you assume that the piece was nothing more than an example of a man showing off his wealth? Discuss.

The Art Market is Burning: All Art is HOT... Can it go Out?

It has been said that the current art market is on fire- that current art sells can be decided by the strike of a match. I've expressed my opinion about the dangers of this hot art market in the recent past (a crash could send younger artists who are selling for high prices into total obscurity and could chip away at the careers of more established artists). However, in regards to the hodge-podge of art that is selling at this time, I must say that it is not really a bad thing... or is it?

The fact that so much art is selling for high prices has me concerned, but the fact that all types of art can thrive in the current market is a nice change from a market that often seems extremely selective. The galleries of today seem to be taking more of a risk with emerging artists in that they are opening their doors- doors that would have been slammed shut just a few years ago when the market was cold.

Emerging artists have been able to get their 'foot in the door'. This has lead to a variety in art styles and forms. Need proof? Attend any major art fair throughout the world and you will observe what I'm talking about. The fires are burning bright for young talent! ...How long will it continue?

This shift in the art market has allowed a wide range of art to be displayed and purchased. Young collectors, which are increasing in number, have embraced this diversity. These aspects of the current art market come together in order to offer artists a more balanced foundation to work from as far as success is concerned. However, the foundation is a rocky one. I don't believe it is stable.

'Rags to riches' stories are plentiful- the overall acceptance of art as a whole has increased sharply. Though I believe it is wise to be cautious of this market I must say that I enjoy the diversity. I hope the diversity continues no matter what happens with the buying market. The art market of today has increased the acceptance of all artistic forms. That is one positive aspect of the current hot market.

At the heart of the market there is a sense that no art is better than another form of art. In 2007 we have seen traditional and conceptual works sell for millions. Photographs and installations have sold for high sums of money alongside traditional oil paintings. Collectors, dealers, and curators are all switching to a form of diversification as far as their collections are concerned. All art is hot at the moment... every artist has a chance to ignite his or her career.

People are embracing a wide variety of art instead of focusing on one area or notion of art. This is great for the acceptance of artists and their work as a whole as it tends to trickle down to the rest of the populace. However, it is wise to keep a wary eye on the market as far as high pricing is concerned. A match can be extinguished by a simple gust of wind, true?

I view the current market as a box of matches- a box of matches that has been thrown upon the floor. People are grabbing every match up and each match happens to be unique from the other in shape and design. Each has a different colored flame when lit- all are accepted as equal. Thus, there is something for everyone.

With that said, what happens when the match sticks no longer fall? When the floor is piled with them and people no longer care to pick them up? When eyes no longer gaze at the lure of the flame? What happens when the box is empty? The flames will die out. That is something to think about... right?

I'm concerned that the acceptance of art in general will be 'put out' if indeed the currents art market 'burns out' at some point. Are any of you concerned about this? Or do you feel that the high interest in art at this time will continue to burn for many years to come? I want your opinions and concerns.

As for me... I'm attracted to the fire... but I fear the flame.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Video Art: Problems, Potential, and Future

(Collectors are not buying video art today, but the children of tomorrow will embrace the video art of the not-so-distant past.)

It is no secret that video art is one of the hottest mediums of our times. Perhaps the popularity of video art is due to the fact that it is a reflection of our technology-driven lives or maybe people relate to it because the pieces often demand the viewers attention. However, video art has many problems and a lot of potential regardless of the reasons it is enjoyed.

Attend any major art fair or biennial and you will observe that art involving technology is becoming very popular. However, popularity does not mean that the work is selling. The simple truth is that collectors are reluctant to buy video art. It has yet to earn that form of acceptance. This is the major problem facing video artists today- acceptance.

This Year's Art Basel had a plethora of plasma screens and art utilizing high technology. As always, the video work attracted crowds and was awarded praise by onlookers. However, on the secondary market, video art does not fair (no pun intended) so well- selling for far less than it would elsewhere. In other words, if video art does not sell at a major art fair it may stand little chance of selling at an art auction.

Another problem for video art is the very thing that attracts people to it. Unlike traditional art forms, which are still and silent, video art is often alive with noise and rapid visual movement- moving art that attacks the senses. The average collectors enjoys observing these works, but are not apt to purchase video art due to the fact that the piece will "Invade the environment of the collection", as one anonymous collector put it.

The strongest supporters of video art are primarily museums. This is partly due to the fact that they have more room to exhibit video installations. Another key factor is the fact that museums can purchase video art for their collections at a relatively cheap price compared to other forms of art- including photography, which for the longest time struggled in the art market.

For example, a museum can purchase video art by a famous artist for as much as three times less than what they would pay for a painting by the same artist. How long will those great buys last? Each new generation embraces technology more than the last. Remember, many people thought that television would never 'take off'.

Video art has the potential to 'take off' as well- with each new generation that embraces it. I'm certain that future works of art that involve technology may struggle as video art has in recent years. However, the children of tomorrow will be far more accepting than the adults of today. That is something that the collectors of today must remember!

That is the biggest issue for video art, the fact that it can take decades for people to accept new forms of technology that are used in artistic creation. Take photography for example, people questioned the validity of photography as an art form for the longest time. There are still some people today who do not accept photography as art, but it is far more accepted than it was 50 years ago.

The torch of 'is it art' is now being passed to video artists and will continue to be passed to artists who further utilize technology for their artistic endeavors in the future. However, like photography, video art will be far more accepted by future generations. History tends to repeat... collectors need to acknowledge that now or regret it later.

The strong foundation that video art has today occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. Artists like Nam June Paik, Fred Forest, and Andy Warhol rooted the art form where others had failed. However, video art will continue to have an uphill battle for acceptance no matter what famous names are attached to it. That is a fact that collectors must consider, but I don't think it should hold them back from making a purchase.

Think of it as a 'ladder of acceptance'- one form of art involving technology takes the next step toward acceptance once a new form of art involving technology takes the very first step- that first step can have a very long fall! It may take a decade or two for video art to gain the level of respect that photography has at this time. Collectors will flock to purchase video art once that acceptance is gained.

A savvy collector would be wise to collect video art now while the prices are so cheap. I have a strong feeling that many collectors will have big regrets twenty years down the road for having not bought into that market today. Collectors should consider the purchase of video art as an investment in a form of art that has the potential to become a major influence in the art world in the near future.

Will video art replace the value of traditional art? I doubt it. However, it is obvious that future generations will embrace art that utilizes technology. Think about how photography is accepted today compared to 50 years ago. Think of the number of children today who know more about computers and other forms of technology compared to the knowledge of their parents. Think about how computer media has influenced the youth of our time. It only makes sense that their children will will fully accept high technology as well... even if it is in the form of art.

The children of tomorrow WILL embrace the video art of today.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: I'd Hate to Burst Your Bubble

Art Basel Director Samuel Keller, who has directed the fair since 2000, will step down this year as head of the world's biggest contemporary fair. Keller has seen the fair through some difficult times and is the mind behind the sister fair- Art Basel Miami Beach (established in 2002). Keller's successor will be named shortly before the Basel fair opens. He is one of several noted art market leaders who have created a protective 'bubble' around current art sales.

For the first time in three years organizers have released a sales estimate. It is expected that over $500 million dollars will be spent this year on works ranging from Pablo Picasso to Damien Hirst.The fair serves as another example of how well the art market is doing. However, what happens if the bubble bursts? Where would it leave younger- less establish artists who are involved with this current market?

Art Basel is scheduled to open on June 13. Over 300 dealers including Doris Ammann and Larry Gagosian will be in attendance- along with an expected 56,000. Hot artists at the show include Cy Twombly, Ed Ruscha, Tom Friedman, George Condo, Jim Lambie, and Elizabeth Peyton. However, there will also be a sale boom in works by younger artists born in the late 1970s and early 80s, artists who have yet to truly establish themselves- that is my concern with the current market.

True, there has been record-breaking sales of art in 2007. It seems that the art market has finally overcome obstacles that had left the market in question for several years. However, I'm nervous as to how much longer this can occur before there is another slump. Slumps in the art market tend to trickle down the chain of art sales. When the market is good it is good for every artist- when it is bad... it is bad. When it is bad... even the most established artist can have a hard time selling his or her work.

Many younger artists, who are not really established yet, are fetching up to $20,000 for their works according to collectors who frequent fairs like Art Basel. This is due to the market at this time. If the art market were to fall it would cause many of these younger artists to get caught in the process- which could lead to young careers being stamped out before they even started. The current market is reminding people of the bubble of the 1980s market and history teaches us that it can burst at any moment.

I'm not suggesting that a young artist should not price his or her work high. However, young artists need to think in the long-term about their careers. Fetching a few high prices now is great, but what if the 'bubble' around the current art market were to pop? Where would that leave them? It is hard to go from fetching $20,000 to just a few thousand per piece. One would do that at the risk of offending collectors who had purchased their work for higher prices. In other words, I'd hate to burst your 'bubble'... just be careful.

The art market looks great at this time. A young artist can throw caution to the wind, right? Just remember that in the wind a bubble can only be carried so far before it finally pops. That is a situation that leaves a young artist who is not established with only one direction to go- Down. Don't get caught in the 'pop'.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Criticism: What Is Interdisciplinary Art?

Hello, my name is Nathan Townes-Anderson and I'm new to the myartspace blog. I'm a new media artist who likes to write casual criticism of contemporary and modern art. My blog entries can be found here and at my website, www.nathantown.com. Enjoy!

---

You're probably familiar with the term "interdisciplinary," perhaps you came across it tucked away in the small print of your college handbook. Well, in the art world, it's been tossed around since the 1960's (the era of the interdisciplinary academic boom!) but how it actually applies to Art is still a little murky. Today I'd like to casually/rigorously define the term "interdisciplinary" in an art context to clear up any confusion. Because there is, I think, some confusion. Let me summarize my argument first and then I'll blab about the specifics:

In the past, artists have often used an "interdisciplinary" approach to innovate in art. The disciplines these artists integrated into the field of art include both academic and vernacular subjects or processes. However, the current definition of "interdisciplinary art" refers to a specific kind of work also called "Institutional Critique." In this work artists use techniques derived from other academic fields, techniques that remain non-artistic and are not integrated into the field of art. Instead of expanding the field of Art, current "interdisciplinary art" reinforces its boundaries, contradicting historical "interdisciplinary" practices.

(If that last paragraph was confusing, don't worry, read on for the long explanation...)

Ok, the blabbing:

To begin, let's define that vague term "interdisciplinary." I'll say it's a way of working that uses knowledge from multiple fields to solve a problem. For example, if you apply interesting stuff from science and math to innovate in art, that could be called interdisciplinary art making. But while the idea of being "interdisciplinary" has become recently popular, the idea is nothing new. Interdisciplinary work has always happened, and different fields have always communicated and shared ideas. The difference now is that we've named it, institutionalized it, and made it possible to get paid (poorly) to be a professor in it. But, generally, folks with knowledge of several fields can get ahead by applying the cutting edge of one field to another field.

Our concept of the "avant-garde" and the following definition of an interdisciplinary approach are similar, since both (usually) integrate new ideas or technologies into a field. There are many art examples of interdisciplinary approaches: there were the first art photographers ("A photograph as art!? That's not art, it's engineering!"), Marcel Duchamp reading up on scientific discoveries and employing their procedures in his absurd experiments, and just try to imagine Surrealism without Freud ("I don't get it...why a hot dog chasing a donut?"). There are contemporary examples as well, such as Bruce Nauman's academic love of literature and music. In all cases, these artists expanded the definition of art to include their interests in other academic fields, making their approaches to art "interdisciplinary."

However, many times artists have integrated ideas from vernacular culture instead of from an academic field. This integration still follows our "interdisciplinary" model, but substitutes Pop for Academia. Warhol, for example, took his personal interests in business and Elizabeth Taylor and integrated them into the field of Art. Picasso, too, integrated his love of "low" or vernacular visual culture (newspapers, African art sold in Pawn Shops) into Art. The list goes on and on.

But, here is the problem: recent uses of the term "interdisciplinary art" can refer to a specific kind of art making termed "Institutional Critique" (see Fred Wilson, Hans Haake). "Institutional Critique" critically addresses the site or context it is shown in and often reveals institutions' ambivalence or hidden intentions. Take this description of UCLA's graduate program concentration in "Interdisciplinary Studio":

"The Interdisciplinary Studio specialization combines directed research and studio practice within a context which aims to provide students with a critical forum for exploring site- and debate-specific forms of institutional critique. The specialization encourages inter-area projects which involve the theoretical procedures or material processes of other academic disciplines." (from http://www.art.ucla.edu/graduate/areas.html)

A bit dense, I know, but they're using the term "interdisciplinary" to refer to the non-artistic research that usually goes into the process of creating such a work. So, in this case, their practice of academic research is not integrated into the field of art, but instead remains firmly part of another discipline.

Speaking literally, this "interdisciplinary" approach does not expand or question the limits of art, because we are immediately informed of where the field of Art ends and where the fields of research begin. Ironically, this artistic approach is the result of an "interdisciplinary" questioning of boundaries, and the hard won integration of contemporary activism into the field of art.

Such a contradiction hints at the conservative nature of such practices, and their limitations as "political" art. Artists continuing to use the "Institutional Critique" model should address this contradiction, now that the initial shock of such practices has worn off. For starters, if they are artists, why is their research considered academic and not artistic?

At the very least, this kind of work should not dominate or direct our discussion of the "interdisciplinary." Duchamp, Picasso and Warhol are way more interesting (and political) than Wilson.

Nathantown
nathan at nathantown dot com

*The Art Of Collecting, by Anna Kilbridge How to Buy Art For Life*

*The Art Of Collecting, by Anna Kilbridge How to Buy Art For Life*

In 1992, my first year studying Art History at Vassar, I read an unbelievable article about a 10 million dollar art donation to the National Gallery of Art in Washington. It’s not often you hear about a 10 million dollar donation. Unheard of, that it’s made by a couple that resides in a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan, and jointly earns less than $50,000 a year. I read on in disbelief. I couldn’t imagine paying the rent, let alone buying Christos. The Vogels, however, did.

Over three decades, Herbert and Dorothy Vogel, a retired postal clerk and librarian, collected over 2,000 contemporary paintings, sculptures and drawings. Their collection comprised works by the late 20th century’s best known artists, including John Cage, Christo and Donald Judd, to just name a few.

At the time, I imagined the Vogels as geniuses. After all, how else could two people, not even artists themselves, build one of the most respected contemporary art collections on just one modest salary? Much to my surprise, the Vogel’s process was nearly identical to the one advised to me by gallery owner after gallery owner, collector after collector as I researched this article asking San Francisco’s experts in emerging art on how one should start and build a collection. There was a great consistency in all the recommendations on how to go about building a collection on a budget.

To read this whole article, refer to:

http://www.myartspace.com/articles/The_Art_of_Collecting.pdf

Hype versus Talent: Which is more Important for Success in the Art World?

In the last two decades we have observed a lot of controversy in the 'art world'. There seems to be a general view that some of the biggest names in the 'art world' will choose work that 'forces an opinion' over work that is done in a more traditional manner (That is not to say that traditional art can't be shocking.). Thus, I ask this question: Do you think hype over a work of art is more important than the talent that went into creating it? Do artists need to ride the 'shock train' in order to find success in the 'art world'?

The question is a difficult one to answer if you take art history into account. I know that many of the artists I enjoy were considered 'shocking' in the past. However, the fact remains that many collectors, dealers, and artists have openly complained that 'real' art is being overlooked for work that is considered 'shocking' today. Do you think works like 'Piss Christ' will be seen for their artistic merit in the future? Will a fresh generation view these works in a different light? Tell me what you think... feel free to post links to art that you feel is 'shocking'.

Art In The News: The 2006 Art Market Boom

It has been a very good year for the art market. Insiders have stated that 2006 has been the best year for art sells in over a decade. Half a billion dollars' worth of art was sold last week at Christie's alone. It is doubtful that the market will decline anytime soon.

The art that exchanged hands last week helped New York to break the one billion dollar mark in art sells. This is the first time that such a high record has been achieved in a single season.

Insiders believe that the 2006 art market will continue to boom. Works by Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, and Andy Warhol will be for sell next week at Christie's and Sotherby's post-war and contemporary art sale. This increase in sells is fueled by a young generation of wealthy buyers.

Emerging artists are also benefiting from the current art market. Many of the artists I've communicated with have noted an increase in the sell of their work during this year. These young artists may not earn 61 million dollars per painting, but they are making enough to be content. Let us hope that this interest in art continues in 2007 and beyond.

Have you sold a work of art recently? Tell us about it!

-B

Art In The News: Picasso Ownership Dispute

Julius Schoeps, a descendant of a former owner of a Picasso painting, recently sued to recover the canvas. The painting, ' Portrait of Angel Fernandes de Sota' was scheduled to be auctioned Wednesday. The lawsuit prompted Christie's officials to withdraw it from sale.

The painting, valued at more that 60 million dollars, was publicly withdrawn from the auction by Christie's and the Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation (Current owner of the painting) during a joint decision. However, a court decision may grant the auction of the painting if Schoeps suit is denied.

Julius Schoeps filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court. Mr. Schoeps claimed that his ancestor, a wealthy banker, was intimidated by members of the Nazi party and forced to sell the prized painting in the 1930s. Schoep demands ownership of the painting or compensation of $60 million from the Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation.

The Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation had hoped to auction the painting (Which has been on the art market for 50 years.) in order to finance actors' scholarships and other theatrical endeavors. It seems that they may not be able to sell the painting anytime soon. There will certainly be further legal hassles over the ownership of this painting.

Art In The News: Berlin Captures Top Art Spot in Germany

The annual Art Cologne, a six day long art fair which has been held in autumn for the last forty years, is having a hard time keeping up with art venues in Berlin. The annual Art Cologne opened today. However, starting next year it will take place in April. A move that will hopefully bring visitors back to Cologne galleries. Galleries, dealers, and artists are moving to Berlin in record numbers.

Cologne has had a history of being the German contemporary art capital and center of the German art market. However, since the 1990s there has been a decline in artistic life in Cologne. Berlin has since moved up to become the hub for the 'art world' in Germany.

This growth has to do with the cost of rent and the 'freshness' of art coming out of Berlin.The art community in Berlin has grown steadily through the years. Land that was once considered 'no-man's-land' has turned into a thriving enclave of artists and galleries.

It is estimated that there are over 400 art galleries in the city, twice as many as a decade ago. Meanwhile, Cologne art scene has dwindled down to 100 galleries. The numbers dwindle as more galleries move their operations to Berlin.

The low cost of rent (about $255 per square meter per month.) in Berlin is one reason why this growth has been solid. It has been estimated that there are over 6,000 artists in Berlin. The cheap studio rent has cultivated a thriving creative art scene. Researchers from Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. have been keeping an eye on these numbers as the art community in Berlin grows.

Cologne is an expensive place for emerging artist to live and work. Berlin simply offers younger artists a better chance at marketing their work. Established artists may stay in Cologne, but it seems that the 'new blood' will dominate the German 'art world' from Berlin.

http://www.artcologne.com/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Be Your Own Rockstar: My Thoughts on the Need for Style Specialization

Have you ever went to a gallery only to find out that half of the various styles of work exhibited were created by a single artist? If so, what did you think? Did you think the artist was good since he or she exhibited skill in various styles of artistic creation? Or did you feel that it would have been better had the artist focused on one style? Is it better to have twenty exhibited pieces that display various styles or twenty that push the limits of a single style? Personally, I find that it is better if an artist exhibits work that share a common connection or style. Thus, I ask the question, "Should artists specialize In a certain style of art?

(Before anyone is insulted by the idea of 'style specialization' I want to make clear that I think it is good for every artist to experiment with different styles. Style experimentation can be the most efficient way to learn different techniques. I'm not suggesting that artists should only create one style of work in their studios. However, I think it is wise to exhibit only one style of work as far as a career in art is concerned. Especially if the artist is seeking recognition for his or her work.)

It has been said that much can be learned from history. I think 'style specialization' is a perfect example of this. For example, open up any art history book and you will probably recognize a painting by Vincent Van Gogh without bothering to look at the name under the image. The same goes for Picasso, Dali, and many MANY others. You know the styles. Thus, you know the artists.

It seems that many famous artists focused on one style even though they tried various ways to express themselves visually throughout their careers. Others tried many forms of self-expression, but are famous for one period of consistent work (Normally created in their early years as artists.). In my opinion, history holds the facts. The fact for artists (in my opinion) is that it is better to specialize on one style as far as exhibiting is concerned.

Think of it this way... the images an artist creates is often seen as a representation of who the artist is. Thus, it is important to find a unique style of expressing yourself and to stick with it. You will stand a better chance of gaining recognition for who you are and what you do. After all, if an artist creates several styles of work the viewing public may find it hard to form a connection with the images and the artist who has created them. This is why the artist seeking recognition must strive to form a connection with those who observe his or her art. The best way to accomplish this is style specialization.

I think about rock bands when I ponder the need for 'style specialization'. Would you enjoy listening to a cd if every other track sounded totally different from the next? Would you go to see the band perform live? I will assume that most people would say "no". After all, who wants to become a fan of a band that is not consistent?

The variety of music may come off as an inability to form a connection from one song to the next. It may also be seen as a lack of talent or authenticity. Do you see many people lining up to watch a garage band performing cover-songs? In the same light, I don't see that many people rushing to an art exhibit to view the work of an artist who does not utilize 'style specialization'.

The most popular bands have had a certain 'sound'. As a painter, I think there is much to learn from that. This is why I think artists should strive to create a certain 'look' with the art they exhibit. A 'look' that people will recognize even if their name is not upon the piece. This does not mean that the art has to be beautiful or ugly. It just has to be you. It has to be a representation of who you are and what you believe in. By conveying that visually (and exhibiting what you create) you will be one step further than artists who are still working with a 'garage band' mentality.

True, there are bands that become 'tired' after so many years of performing and releasing albums. More often than not, they find something that works and abuse it to the point that their music mirrors everything that they have done before. Only the most die-hard fans will take delight in listening to that sort of noise! The same goes for visual artists. One must be wary not to repeat him or herself.

Focusing on 'style specialization' does not mean that an artist should be locked within a comfort zone. One should strive to expand his or her style specialization (this is where the studio experimentation with other styles comes into play.) so as to not become stagnate.

Keep in mind that working with a certain style should not be like sitting in a cell. Just like the best musical groups a visual artist should work with his or her style in order to advance it in new directions and to reach anyone who is willing to 'listen'. The visual artist must bust through the bars! Remember, creative expression imprisoned is no expression at all... be consistent with what you exhibit, find your 'style specialization', and become a visual rockstar!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art In The News: Top Twenty Most Powerful People In The Art World.

The ArtReview magazine has released its annual list of one hundred powerful people. Here are the top twenty on the list:

1: François Pinault, owner of Gucci and Christies, also owns around 2,000 pieces of contemporary art which he displays in his private gallery in a Venetian palace

2: Larry Gagosian, dealer, five galleries around the world

3: Sir Nicholas Serota, director, Tate Modern

4: Glenn D Lowry, director, Museum of Modern Art, New York

5: Samuel Keller, director of the Art Basel art fair

6: Eli Broad, Los Angeles-based collector and philanthropist

7: Charles Saatchi, collector and gallery owner

8: Matthew Slotover & Amanda Sharp, co-publishers of Frieze magazine and co-directors of Frieze art fair

9: Bruce Nauman, American artist

10: Jeff Koons, American artist

11: Damien Hirst, British artist

12: Brett Gorvy & Amy Cappellazzo, international co-heads of post-war and contemporary art at Christie's, New York

13: Robert Storr, American curator

14: Iwan Wirth, Swiss dealer, part of Zwirner & Wirth

15: Marian Goodman, New York-based gallerist

16: David Zwirner, New York gallerist

17: Gerhard Richter, German artist

18: Marc Glimcher, New York gallerist

19: Jay Jopling, owner, White Cube gallery, London

20: Mike Kelley, American artist

Art In The News: The Art-O-Meter. Coming to a Gallery Near You. Maybe...

"Art-O-Meter is a device that measures the quality of an art piece. It bases its evaluation on the amount of time that people spend in front of an artwork compared to the total time of exhibition."

Have you heard about the Art-O-Meter? It is a device placed near an exhibited painting for the purpose of keeping track of the average viewing time visitors spend observing the art. The quality or aesthetic worth of the piece is decided by the amount of time observers view the painting.

Without viewers present, the Art-O-Meter will register time like a regular clock. However, a second timer is triggered once the motion sensor detects someone near the work of art. This second clock counts the time as the viewer observes the artwork.



There is one vital flaw with this device. It stands out! One can assume that people may spend more time observing the Art-O-Meter than viewing the painting near it. This scenario would lead to inaccurate data as to the value of the art based on the time it is observed during the exhibit.

It is also common for people to gather around a painting while talking about everything 'under the sun'. They may not be observing the artwork during their conversation. Is it fair for the piece to benefit from this form of 'chat time'?

What would happen if galleries started to utilize this technology as a basis for who they exhibit? ("Your art is observed an average of 5 seconds per viewer. We only accept art that is observed for 10 seconds or longer!"). I doubt that would ever happen, but it could. Can you imagine how many artists would stand near their own artwork just to increase the
viewing average? ;p

Take care, Stay true

Brian Sherwin

Art In The News: Donated Painting Earns $160,002 For Goodwill

The painting that was donated.

An anonymous donor recently dropped off a painting by Frank Weston Benson at a Goodwill in Portland Oregon. It is not known if the anonymous donor knew the value of the painting, but a local gallery owner did. A bidding war ensued upon the authentication of the piece.

The starting bid for the 1923 watercolor was a mere $10 and ended up reaching the hefty sum of $160,002 on the organization's website . The winning bidder has not yet been revealed.


'Red and Gold' Frank Weston Benson

Frank Weston Benson, a member of the Ten American Painters, was an American Impressionist. His paintings often depicted his daughters posing outside of his summer home on the island of North Haven.


'Eleanor Holding a Shell' Frank Weston Benson

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Does Wealth and Fame Cause Artists To Decline in Their Artistic Endeavors?

We have all heard stories about famous artists who struggled in poverty yet continued to create art that was outstanding. Names like Vincent Van Gogh and Amedeo Modigliani come to mind. Art spanning the length of their careers has continued to inspire others decade after decade. However, there are also famous artists who became very wealthy during their lifetime from the sell of their art who seem to have lost their artistic flare for exploration. While their wealth increased their skill seemed to deteriorate. The question at hand... did their approach to artistic creation decline as their fame and wealth increased? Or is it just an issue of their personality and work ethic.


'Apparition of the Visage of Aphrodite of Cnide in a Landscape' Salvador Dali

Take Salvador Dali for example. During his years of 'struggle' he created images that have continued to speak to observers from one decade to the next. He had a great passion for his work during his early career. However, most critics agree that his later work, after he became extremely wealthy and concerned with financial gain, seemed to decline as far as the artistic message he was conveying. I've even heard people suggest that his work became stagnate or dull compared to his pre-wealth art. If this is so, do you think it was due to him feeling overly comfortable with his financial situation? Or was it simply a matter of personality and work ethic.


'Two Doves with Wings Spread' Pablo Picasso

After all, artist like Picasso continued to develop in new directions long after becoming overly wealthy. The same goes for Monet. Were these artists more interested in artistic exploration than artists who seemed to pursue wealth over the direction of their art? Or were they simply not blinded by the wealth they had acquired?


'Hymn' Damien Hirst

I'm sure you can discover contemporary artists of wealthy status who have started to repeat themselves or who have revealed a lack of direction with their art. For example many have stated that Damien Hirst has lost direction with his art (Though some would say he never had one.) Critics have claimed that his recent work is nothing more than 'throwaway one-liners'. So what do you think? Is wealth linked to a decline in artistic endeavors? Or is all this negative press simply the work of critics who strive to bash any wealthy artist they can in order to advance their own careers?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art In The News: Picasso Poked... or Rude Awakening

Picasso's 'The Dream' was rudely awakened when current owner, Las Vegas casino magnate Steve Wynn, accidently gave the multimillion dollar painting an elbow. Mr. Wynn was preparing the painting for a $139 million sale to another collector when he accidently hit the painting.

The damage occurred when Mr. Wynn backed his elbow into 'The Dream' while showing his collection to a group of friends. The force of the blow left a hole in the middle of the painting.

Needless to say, Mr. Wynn backed out of the sale agreement with the other collector. How is that for a sleepless night?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art In The News: Anish Kapoor

The world renowned sculptor Anish Kapoor has been named one of the 100 most powerful people in the contemporary art scene. Mr. Kapoor is listed 94 among the '100-strong' list in a recent issue of Art Review magazine.

Mr. Kapoor is a Mumbai-born sculptor who attended the prestigious Doon School. He now resides in the UK. The 52 year old Kapoor made a name for himself in the 1980s as one of the top British sculptors of his time.

Mr. Kapoor is currently working on a memorial to the British victims of 9/11 in New York.

You can learn more about Anish Kapoor at: http://www.lisson.co.uk/artists.asp

Feel free to discuss Mr. Kapoor's art and presence in the art world.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

A Slice of Art: There is More than One Flavor of Art Pie.

Action Psyche (1974) Gine Pane (French)Performance art like this piece is just another slice of the Art Pie. Have you 'tasted' any lately?

In my opinion, art does not follow a strict guideline in order to be considered "good'. I think of it like a pie. As you know, we have came up with many types of pie and many flavors to choose from. Even when pie is made poorly it can still taste good, right? So does that not mean that art that you consider poorly constructed can still be 'good'? Or is the problem with elitists who will only taste one flavor?

There are so many styles of art out there today. So many slices of the art pie. Is it so hard to taste a slice that has not been 'baked' in the manner your are accustomed to? I think people who have closed their minds should gain an acquired taste for the art that they loathe. It would appear that some people need to be forced-fed just to take that first little bite! It is only a matter of intellect and the ability to discern emotive reasoning, true? Bite down.

There are many slices to this pie! Many styles and ways of thinking. I would think that it would become rather dull to 'eat' the same slice of pie over and over again for a lifetime. It would seem that some people need to develop a 'stronger stomach' so that that they can 'digest' all of the flavors of the art pie that is available to them.

Take care, Stay true

Brian Sherwin

Does Your Personality Sell Paintings?

Is the artists image just as important as the work he or she creates?

We all know of the image of the eccentric, lunatic, or brooding artist. These stereotypes are made popular in film and novels. My question is, does it pay to have a persona or to be who you are? Is your personality included in the package when you sell a piece? I've asked myself these questions before, but a recent exhibit made them fresh in my mind.

I met a painter during a large group exhibit I attended recently. I noticed her the second I entered the large exhibit room. She was talking with a group of patrons who had crowded around her work. Other artists who were exhibiting with her seemed to be shadowed by the chaotic light that sprang from the energy of her performance. Was she faking? Was it all an act? Was this real? I felt compelled to observe her display.

Her eyes seemed to be wide and wild while she laughed loudly at practically everything that was said to her by her viewers. Some of them returned her gestures while others seemed to be startled. The only pause in communication came in the form of a shy curator bumping through the crowd in order to place red stickers near the paintings that were sold. During this entire process curious observers, such as myself, remained in the artists presence. She held her audience.

This went on for over twenty minutes from the time I had entered the gallery. This artist had captivated her audience by her wild charm, eccentric nature, and provocative choice of discussion. She did all of this while making sudden movements that made her appear to have some sort of affliction. This display, along with her bright red dress, seemed to be a focal point for everyone who entered the building.

Eventually I broke from the crowd in order to observe the work of the other exhibiting artists. The rest of the exhibit seemed 'dead' compared to the area where the 'crazy woman in the bright red dress' (As one person defined her.) was still putting on an exhibit of her own. The other artists had not sold any paintings!

The other artists stood around as if they were bored or angry. A few of them ate snacks while discussing studio space and the price of materials. It was at this point that I started to ask myself about how the personality of the artist correlates with the sell of work. Do viewers expect to see a 'show of personality' along with the show of work? Did ranting and raving help the woman in red to sell her art? A number of questions popped into my mind.

The others did seem rather dull when compared to her. Most of them did not attempt to approach anyone who walked near their paintings. The few that did passed out 'business cards' instead of actually talking about their art. A livewire personality seemed to do more for the woman in red than 100 business cards could ever do.

What puzzled me the most was the fact that the woman in the red dress was not the most skilled artist present nor was she the most known. There were other artists there who had already made names for themselves in the community. Not only were they far more skilled than the woman in red, but they also had established buyers. However, their patrons flocked toward the woman in the red dress while they stood with their arms crossed.

I stood outside after the exhibit had closed with a few of my art-related friends. We discussed various art topics. The woman in red left the gallery as my friends and I conversed. She came up and listened to us for several minutes. The wild spark of personality that she had displayed during gallery hours seemed to have left her.

She did not seem to speak in the same tone. In fact, her behavior was the complete opposite of how she had been during the exhibit. She was no longer wild and loud. Instead, she seemed shy. She hardly spoke a word and her actions were very reserved.

I noticed that there were a number of discarded artist business cards on the ground as the woman in the red dress walked away. Maybe those artists should rely on their force of personality (or invent one) rather than relying on tiny slips of paper to sell their art.

Do you think this artist was putting on a 'show' in order to attract potential buyers? After all, she no longer made the sudden movements or wild open stares when she talked to me outside of the exhibit. Would the other artists had sold more if they had used a 'persona' as well (If indeed she was putting on some form of act)?

How common do you think this practice is? Can you think of any well-known artists who are 'not what they seem'? Have you observed similar situations personally? Do you roleplay during your exhibits? Do you think some of the more famous artists may have put on 'fronts' as well? Does it matter? Is it just part of the creative process? Should we expect our personality and art to be sold as a combined package? Discuss.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Turner Prize Finalist for 2006

An exhibition of the Turner Prize Finalist for 2006 began on the 3rd of October. The finalist will be showing at the Tate gallery in Britain until the 14th of January. The four artists include Phil Collins, Tomma Abts, Rebecca Warren, and Mark Titchner. There's 40,000 pounds up for grabs between them, with the winner receiving 25,000 pounds. The winner will be announced on the 4th of December, 2006.

The Turner Prize is an annual prize given to a British artist who is under 50 years of age. The prize, which began in 1984, is named after the painter J.M.W Turner and is organized by the Tate. The prize remains to be one of the United Kingdom's most publicised art awards and is known for drawing a great deal of controversy. For example, Artists Damien Hirst (The Shark) and Tracey Emin (My Bed) have both been been exhibited in the past.

The Turner Prize has been opposed by British artists who agree with the views of Stuckism, an art movement that was founded in 1999 in Britain by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson to promote figurative painting in opposition to conceptual art. It has also been blasted by critics in the media.

Critic Jonathan Jones has stated that the, "Turner Prize art is based on a formula where something looks startling at first and then turns out to be expressing some kind of banal idea, which somebody will be sure to tell you about. The ideas are never important or even really ideas, more notions, like the notions in advertising. Nobody pursues them anyway, because there's nothing there to pursue."

Many feel that the Turner Prize favors a minority of artists and does not represent the 'best art' that the British art community has to offer. Some have even made the charge that the Turner Prize is corrupt with the wealth and power of famous art collectors who dictate what art is accepted.

In 2002 culture minister Kim Howells pinned the following statement to a board in a room specially-designated for visitors' comments. "If this is the best British artists can produce then British art is lost. It is cold mechanical, conceptual bullshit. Kim Howells. P.S. The attempts at conceptualisation are particularly pathetic and symptomatic of a lack of conviction" His stance was approved by the government, who saw it as a popular one.

Here are the finalist:
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/tommaabts.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/philcollins.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/marktitchner.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/rebeccawarren.htm

It seems that the controversy over the Turner Prize will continue. What do you think about this award? What about the finalist? Is the prize nothing more than a commercial tool? Does it matter if it is?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Charles Saatchi Interviewed by The Guardian

Charles Saatchi, a world famous art collector, was recently interviewed by The Guardian newspaper. Saatchi has made many young artists famous simply by collecting their works. He is one of the biggest names in the 'art world'. The interview offers a great deal of insight into his views about life and art. This was a very rare event since Sattchi is rarely interviewed.The full interview can be seen here.

What do you think about his views on art? What do you think about the power he has in the art world? I want your opinions.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Success of 'Celebrity' Painters: Merit or Fame.

I remember having a few conversations about celebrity art during my college years. My studio friends and I would debate about the artistic merit of these individuals and their art while working on our own paintings.

Three painters seemed to be targeted the most: John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney. Many of these debates developed into heated discussions since some of the students involved were die-hard fans of these musicians. Thus, I decided to post an entry about this issue to see how you all respond.

What do John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney have in common? Well, aside from all being famous musicians they have also each received acclaim for their painting endeavors. What else do they have in common? They all have said, in one form or the other, that they do not want to be known as 'celebrity painters'.

The three have all stated that they never intended to exhibit their work. In other words, they did not want their musical fame to buy them a free ticket into the art world. A noble gesture. However, they have all increased their fortune by selling prints and art books since making those humble remarks (Each has donated to charity from the proceeds.).

What do you think about these painters? Does their musical background warrant the acclaim that their visual art has attained or is their artistic merit paving the way for their painting success? Can enough fame and money establish you as an artist? Is it fair to painters who have painted for decades with little to no recognition? (As the saying goes, "Life is not fair.")

Mellencamp is known for leaving cowboy boot prints on his paintings (he began oil painting in 1988.), Manson has been called an "accomplished watercolor painter", and Paul McCartney, who once studied under Willem de Koonig, has had packed exhibits in Germany and England (He has painted privately for over 17 years.). All have had major exhibits even though their artistic ability was not well documented until the works surfaced due to the interest of their friends and family.

How many artists do you know who have went from total obscurity as painters to the spot-light in such a short time? Is it wrong for celebrity status to play such a role in success of a painter? What about the countless numbers of artists who are equally talented, but lack that 'celebrity force'?

Just for your information: An average Mellecamp print sells for about $500, McCartney prints sells for $1,750, and Manson's paintings have sold for over $5,000 a piece. Each painter has released books displaying their art images (around $40 each.).

Do you think they deserve these prices? After all, an artist off the street could never expect to receive such a payment for prints or art books, right? What do you think about this? Does it help or hurt the 'art world'? Does their success help or hurt other painters who have yet to become established in the art world?

Here are some quotes from the painters:

"I wasn't intending for any of these pieces to be for anybody but myself or the friends that I did portraits of and would give as gifts. I never intended to show them, much less sell them, until several years of paintings built up. And when people would come to my house, they would urge me to show people my art.

So I took the step and I did it, and I've been quite proud of and surprised by the support and interest, especially from younger fans who may not have gotten into art at such an early age. Maybe this will encourage them to take a look at other things." - Marilyn Manson

"People who paint, including myself, get to a point where a bit of angst comes in. If you're doing it for a living, it's worth it to suffer those slings and arrows. If I was going to paint for my own fun, that was one thing I had to avoid." - Paul McCartney

"I realize that there are probably hundreds of people who deserve to have a book of their paintings published before I do, but because of my celebrity I've been given this great opportunity to show off my 'hobby' and, in turn, make money for charity. It isn't about how great I think I am at paining or music, but rather a reminder to people how great it can feel to just try." - John Mellencamp

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Higher Education in Art: Does The MFA Make You a "Better" Artist?

Through the years I have spoken with many artists who seemed disgruntled about having not earned a Master of Fines Arts degree. Many of them feel that their art careers have suffered since they never obtained a higher education in art. They often complained about artists who have earned an MFA when we conversed about this issue.

It was common for them to claim that artists who have an MFA are treated "better" because of the degree they hold. What do you think about this issue? Does a degree in art make someone a better artist? Does it 'pay' to earn an MFA? Do you think people favor artists who have an educational background in art? Should they even consider it when considering the value of the artist as a whole? Have you ever experienced anything negative in your art career due to not having a degree? (Or having one?)

Once, over several cups of coffee at a cafe, a fellow painter ranted for over an hour about the "elitist mentality of galleries and museums". He ranted, "They only value the degree you hold... not what you are doing with your art!" (Needless to say, I made him pay for the coffee after enduring his lecture.). This associate felt that "untalented hacks" were being chosen over him simply because of their degree.

How true is his experience? Could he have just been paranoid or trying to find an excuse for his failure? Has it happened to you? I'm sure we all have examples of it, but do you think it is a widespread problem? If it is, are these professionals wrong for 'raising the bar' as to who they accept and who they turn away? Are the professionals making a grave error as to who they select for representation? (Remember, there have been many famous artists who never attended a school of art).

I highly doubt that every museum/gallery decides the art they are willing to represent on a degree alone. However, I can see why an inexperienced collector would choose an artist who has an MFA over an artist who does not. Our society values higher education so it may be easy for someone new to art collecting to think that only artists with a degree are worth investing in. After all, when you need something fixed do you call the guy down the street or do you call the certified repairman?

In truth, Average Joe down the street may have more experience and knowledge of the repairs needed, but the certification gives the other guy a sense of credibility. It gives the customer the feeling that he is getting what he paid for. Is this fair? Not necessarily, but how can you change the mindset of the general population? How can you make them feel secure in their purchase when their security is often rooted in the credentials that you have?

This topic is a two-sided coin. I've also spoken with artists who are unhappy with the MFA they have earned. Some have stated that the degree is, "Nothing but a waste of money." or that they could have "learned all of this on my own.". A few have even claimed that the MFA "Held" them back as artists. They felt that the art they do would have been better accepted by others outside of academia had they been 'outsider artists'.

How ironic... some of the haves and the have-nots both feel "held back' over the same degree, but for different reasons.What do you think about this? Do you think an MFA degree is a necessity in regards to having a successful career in art? Do you think it is just a piece of paper that brings with it much debt?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Material of Controversy: Is the worth of our art decided by the materials we use?

What makes a work of art controversial? What gives a painting 'shock value'? A realistic painting of the Madonna with Christ done in oil paint is deemed beautiful, but a piece of similar quality and intricacy is deemed worthless by many if it is done in blood. If said piece is done with HIV infected blood (Which some artists have used as a medium) it is deemed horrible or downright blasphemous.

The HIV image would be labeled as 'shock' art by many with an end result of the artist not being taken seriously. Yet the images were both created by artists who share a close level of skill and natural talent. The two artists may even share an equal interest in exploring their artistic potential, process, and method. However, the oil painter will be accepted over the other and the 'loser' will be deemed untalented or unskilled.

Based on this observation, it would seem that the materials alone decided the fate of the painting. Do the materials we use really matter as to how our work should be valued?

Many would say, ""Why use THAT to create a work of art!" when observing the various materials used by artists in the last fifty years alone. Well, why not use IT and everything else? Is it a crime to experiment with materials? Why do so many seem to fear this form of change? After all, the goal of many artists is to learn what works and what does not. To some it is a form of science.

It can be said that such experimentation is the heart and soul of the 'art world'. The art world would become stagnate if artists did not work in new ways to express their vision. If it were not for this spirit of experimentation we would all still be locked in the cell of the academic tradition.

It is my opinion that the more these artists are censored by the public and rejected by their peers, the more the art world will be restricted before everything is said and done. And to think, much of it has to do with the materials these artists use... nothing more.

Why label a painter as a 'shock artist' just because he or she decides to explore the potential of a rarely used medium in order to convey a visual message? Would the same painting be enjoyed by the viewer had it been painted in a traditional manner? Remember, the artist may not wish to shock anyone. Shock may be the furthest thing from his mind. Yet he is labeled because of his choice of medium and his career directive is set in stone based on mere assumptions of what his intentions are.

Think of the 'shock artist' that disgusts you the most. Is the artist Damien Hirst? Perhaps the artist is Tracey Emin? How about Nobuyoshi Araki? Many people find these artists to be 'shocking'. Have you ever bothered to read what the artist has written about his or her work? Does the artist truly mean to shock others... or are you just shocked by the materials that he or she has chosen?

These artists may be representing a clearer image of our reality than any traditional artist. Perhaps that is why their work, and the way they present it by using unorthodox materials, is loathed or feared. Perhaps these works are to 'real' for many of us to deal with.

While you ponder this question think about how our world has changed. Some of your interests would be considered shocking by your great grandparents, true? Does that mean you should stop researching or exploring them? Is your answer "no"? If so, why should these artists stop creating?

Take care, Stay true

Brian Sherwin

Vanity Publications: Is the cost of being accepted worth the cost of your art career if you are accepted?

I'm certain that at one point in every artists life he or she will be tempted (or will know someone who has.) to order and submit work to some $19.95 publication claiming to be on the 'cutting edge' of artistic publications. Publications like this offer artists the chance to have their work 'recognized nationally by art critics and collectors.' simply by submitting artwork. They often claim to be the perfect PR move for aspiring artists. What you read may sound good, but the end result may be very bad for your career as an artist.

Imagine, you are surfing the net and you discover a site about having your work published. The company offers you the chance to have your work displayed in the book with other talented artists. All you have to do is submit your work and you may be selected for the publication. Seems like a good PR move, right? WRONG.

A few days later you receive an email stating that your image has been selected. Your heart stops with excitement. After calming down you joyfully order a dozen copies for your friends, family, and one for yourself. You think about all of the people who will finally see your work.

"Will I become famous", "Will this help me obtain that grant?", "Maybe that MFA program will take me seriously now.", "Gallery representation is knocking on my door!"... thought after thought crosses your mind. Your work is finally going to be published! You go to bed after telling all of the people close to you (and a few you don't like... for bragging rights.) about your achievement. You dream of becoming an 'art star' over night after the publication is released. Sweet dreams? I can tell you right now (based on the experiences of some of my artist friends) that they are not made of this!

A couple of months pass and you finally receive your copies of the publication. Excited, you rip open the box containing the books and anxiously tear away the plastic wrapping from the first book you grab. You can't wait to see your artwork and the work of all the other talented artists represented in the publication. Horror strikes!

You discover that the book contains page after page of mediocre artwork. You turn the page and focus on a picture of a stick man riding a stick horse followed by a picture of a snowman dancing with a dog. You discover your own image on the opposite page as you stray away from the absurd images. You question yourself, "Talented artists... fine art?" as the phone rings. It is one of your friends calling. He wants his copy of the book. Did you make a mistake? Yes. The question is, do you know how big of a mistake you may have made. One thing is for certain, this mistake could cost you far more than $19.95.

These types of books are nothing more than vanity publications. They target aspiring artists who are hoping to bypass the 'grit' of the art business in order to 'make it big'. These companies prey on the dreams of creative individuals.The artist submits, gains acceptance, and orders a dozen copies. The catch is that everyone who submits will most likely get accepted. There may be a hundred different versions of the same publication created, each containing art by different artists. The company has long since cashed your check by the time you find out that the publication is not what it was represented to be. (That is where their 'fine print' comes into play.)

True, the book is about artists and their art, the company did not lie about that, but the caliber of the artists published can vary greatly. A serious artist would most likely not want his or her art shown in the same context as others who may be mere 'hobby painters'. The negative side of having your work in a vanity publication is that your art may be devalued by those who observe your work alongside art that is of a lesser quality. Once the book is printed your ill decision is documented for all to see (I've seen these books sold at art fairs and on library shelves.). The damage can haunt your career as an artist for years or become a rather nasty inside joke. Good PR move? Nope.

There are smart choices an artist can make before falling into the vanity publication trap. Online galleries, like those supported by myartspace.com, are good PR moves for any serious artist. True, the artists on any art site may have different levels of skill and talent, but each individual is represented by his or her own gallery. They are not all lumped into one solid shell like vanity publications tend to do.

Unlike vanity publications, an online gallery offers the individual artist to stick out rather than being represented as having equal skill and merit. The artist is not represented by every other artist upon the site. He or she is represented by his or her own personal space. Your online gallery is a representation of you alone. Vanity publications represent everyone as a whole (regardless of skill or merit), which has an end result of misrepresenting talented artists to whomever picks up a copy of the book.

A little PR can go a long way, but if done in the wrong manner it can make an artist seem desperate. However, I understand that our need for being "seen" sometimes clouds our decision making and choices. Thus, I will stress that the best way to be "seen" is to maintain an online gallery (Like the galleries we have on myartspace.com). Being involved with your online gallery is a far better PR move than relying on any form of vanity publication.

Allow me to be frank, do you want to be a coffee-table memory or a successful artist? These publishers can be the lemon-car dealers of the art world! Remember, famous artists of the past did not pay to be included into vanity publications. They put their work out for people to see. Today we have the option of putting our work out for thousands to see daily on an online gallery. Take advantage of it.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin.

What Is Acceptable Art: A Question Every Artist Should Ask.

What is acceptable art? This has been a question asked by every art observer since the time art was first appreciated for aesthetic value. Through the centuries certain artists and their styles have been embraced or rejected by their peers. We will all face this at some point in our art career.

More often than not, an artist who is rejected by his or her generation (Vincent Van Gogh, Egon Schiele, George Grosz) will be widely accepted by a future generation. Think about the controversial artists of our time. Will they be widely accepted tomorrow? Should we, as artists, accept them today?

It seems that many artists are just as guilty as the public in regards to judging the value of certain artists who work in a radical manner. It is an 'at least the finger is pointed at them' mentality' which, in my opinion, has an end result of hurting every artist.

The truth of the matter is that many artists are held back if the general public is adamantly against their work. Their peers, within the context of the art world, rarely show them support out of fear of being 'fingered'. When will we unite to support those who have been thrown out on the edge? When will we start to point back?

It often seems that the controversial artist walks alone as if he or she has the plague. Should we give them support when this breed of censorship occurs? How safe are we in the future if a few are allowed to be persecuted for their art today. As for myself, I would rather not play Russian roulette as to what art is acceptable and what art is not. I know that a hundred years ago my work would have been seen in a negative light by most of the public. Thus, I will be tolerant of all art today.

Remember that at one time Picasso was seen as a disgrace to the popular concept of art, George Grosz was observed as being a 'butcher' rather than a painter, and Vincent Van Gogh was only accepted by a select few within his inner circle. Now these artists are famous the world over. Let us not allow artists of our time to be denied their chance at success due to our own perception of what art should be. After all, the next artist that is held back may be you.

My opinion is that making rash decisions about what is acceptable in the art world is like stomping on the lungs of creation. The advancement of art, no matter how refined or brutal, should be allowed to breathe. Anything less than this will lead to the suffocation of expression as a whole. Think about this the next time you write a fellow artist off as a hack or perverted lunatic.

What is acceptable art?... All art?... Good and bad? Does the process alone give value to the worth of the work? Does the dedication of the artist make the art acceptable no matter what the subject matter or materials used? Would Picasso's "Guernica" not have the same message and fame had he mixed blood in his paints? Would Léonard de Vinci's "Mona Lisa" be so respected had he used traces of feces? Would Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" been so infamous had he used dye? Think about this and feel free to respond.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin.