Why Collect Art?
Recently Bloomberg News reported on the dramatic unloading of the so called "Zombie Art" market in recent auctions. Often rationalized as the emergent market, the contrasting example this time is a Canadian work by Hugh Scott-Douglas.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-19/that-100-000-painting-bought-to-flip-yours-for-about-20-000
What was once apparently valued at 100K is now worth 20K. The idea of young and mostly inexperienced artists garnering even $20,000 (less commission) for a single work, let alone 100,000 strikes me as absurd, but likewise as in real estate, this is about the art of the flip, not about the aesthetics and meaningfulness of cultural production, or an artist's skill, depth of study and developed vision.
A much needed probity in terms of social and cultural value is required. But where, if it exists can it be found?
 |
| Four Seasons, New York |
Certainly not in the studios of Bloomberg, covering hucksterism, and the robber baron world of art. A world of agents that flip art like houses, wine and dine titan acquisitionalists with storage units chalk a block full of Zombie art that require hefty insurance fees. And certainly not in a world where if a painting's value plummets over night in the forest of art - does anybody hear. When bottom feeders like Stefan Simchowitz, the Los Angeles entrepreneur known for buying in bulk from young artists on behalf of clients and for his own collection, may desire to be seen as rubbing his hands with glee, investors talk. But in reality he too must also be concerned about being last to hold the bag in a volatile game of investor chance.
“I am going to be extremely active in the auction market as a seller and a buyer,” said Simchowitz, who owns 3,500 artworks.
Indeed he may, considering the vast amount of questionable matter he needs to move as its due date nears expiration. But this is not really a realistic world of collecting. For one reason is that no one is really collecting - at least where culture is concerned. In an 2014 interview with Sky Gooden of Momus, the question was posed to incumbent director, Susannah Rosenstock of Art Toronto :
How do you reflect on the Canadian art market’s seeming hesitance and conservatism?
"As an outsider who’s only been watching this market for seven years, I can see (Toronto) that it’s a younger city. It doesn’t have the history that Chicago has, for instance, the families that have been building these collections for several hundred years, the robber barons. But I’ve seen it change so much in that time, so I’m optimistic that it will keep going. And this goes back to my desire for the fair to be more international: we can work hard on that but an art fair is just one aspect of a larger market, a growing market." [1]
Two points are noteworthy here. First, the perspective that the market is always "growing", with the idea of the robber baron as a precedent. According to Oxford Dictionary a robber baron is: A person who has become rich through ruthless and unscrupulous business practices (originally with reference to prominent US businessmen in the late 19th century).
It goes without saying this archetypal model for amassing wealth is alive and well, and has played an essential role in maintaining the value of art through this period of financial imperialism. Much, if not all of this model is based on the 1914 French financier, Andre Level and his Le Peau de L’ours investment club. They initiated a remarkable return of 400 percent to their investors by purchasing early works by Picasso, Matisse, and Vlaminck from 1907 to 1914. These works were eventually considered masterpieces as modernism claimed the mantle of European art. They have been making millions and canonised the elite as arbiters of taste and wealth ever since.
The second point focuses on the other side of investing - the idea that the Canadian art market is hesitant and conservative. What are we to make of this inference? Does it point to a lack luster interest in collecting post modernist Canadian art canonised by the Toronto art fair gallerists and museums? Or is the collector base with an interest in this field unable to legitimise the work as it is foisted into art fairs and splinter fairs alike by the wheel barrow load. Invariably art fairs boast the final sales tally the way film companies measure a film's value in terms of box office revenues. Even Eric Fischel in a series of recent paintings, found the art fair world too lush an environment to resist for maintaining his social critique of the one percenters. It is to a large extent an unsavory world with murky connections to the culture capitals.
Yet, there is another type of collector, one that takes genuine interest in cultural edification through art - Cheech Marin:
Marin's focus on not how one grows a collection (although that too is important), but “why” one may start to collect, and what streams one might follow to answer this question in a world where art has been subject to the continued status of a plaything of trade titans. The ethics of collecting remain fraught with this stigma, and to encourage a new generation of collectors requires one to overcome the “how to route to collecting successfully” and induce a means of cultural inspiration and edification for the potential collector and their respective passions.
Essentially we collect to learn and enrich our lives and our community. We
collect in order to challenge our beliefs, enhance discourse with others, and foster the
need for vision in ever challenging times – not to corroborate our own ideas or
profit from them. Collecting art just may be one of the most difficult and
uncomfortable enterprises active today. We collect to provide an agent for
discussion with family and friends, not to just decorate our surroundings. We
collect for our experience and love of memory. We may even collect in order to
see how a precious mind develops as their art matures into a vision intimately
connected to their geographical place of being and understanding.
Collecting is truly a mysterious enterprise and has made many a person far more insightful in terms of their personal and cultural education.
I have been fortunate to see some of my works go into collections both private and institutional where cultural edification is relevant to the collector. There are many avenues to explore when it comes to researching an artist or their art, but there is really nothing that replaces being arrested by a work in the flesh. However, it is obvious technology has altered traditional routes of expertise.
Collectors
have so much more in terms of resources today than ever before. Researching an
artist and their work continues to expand. Blouin Info Blogs posted a good one
on Invaluable, an online auction
house with informative blogs not only
for the collector, but the artist as well. The blogs
are informative and cultural in orientation, as well as
covering the art industry in general.
I have seen many collections that were built with a modest means. One need not follow Bloomberg's reports on the market flippers to ponder the purchase of a painting or sculpture. Like Cheech Marin, the reason why one collects might be bound up in our desire to understand narrative, and who might be making art that responds to our own inner narrative. I believe it is out there, however it is up to the collector to find it.
Steven Rhude, Wolfville, NS
http://www.stevenrhudefineart.com/ [1] The future of Art Toronto, and how it plans to adapt, Nov. 2014 - Sky Gooden
Comments
Post a Comment