I'm not sure I can go along with your benign acceptance of the art game business as usual, Michael. The effect of the Hist-Koons, et al bamboozles is that their work does become naturalized as milestones of art history. When deKooning was making paintings he was addressing art, art history, the great tradition. When these new manufacturers have their crews do this or that they are not thinking at all of art and its tradition but are making objects of wealth exchange. What else can you buy for 20 million that's as easy to care for than an artwork? It's presumably not subject to the world markets like investment papers. It's easier to care for than a yacht, or a big building, or a risky adventure in third world forests, etc. If you had 100 million in cash to park and protect, a Koons, a Hirst, a Murikami (sp?) might be smart. Your billionaire friends will be jealous and will try to prove to you and others that they are richer and can bid up the prices. Art has nothing to do with it....but it doee, crazily, get into the art history mainstream and will affect the arts for decades to come. WC
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 10:13 AM > On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:04 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > The current auctioning of Hirst's new production > -- bypassing the > > usual dealers -- exemplifies his role as a > money-changer-washer for > > the big money folks. Would anyone, especially a rich > capitalist, > > spend 15+ million for one of Hirst's manufactured > art-objects if it > > were certain that its future value in a decade or so > would be > > pennies on the dollar? Surely, the answer is no. > > When I see such news items in the general press, I expect > the writers > to hyperventilate about the oddity of it all (isn't > that just like > artists?) and to exhibit little erectile bumps all over > their > corpuses, revealing their excitement at the succhs de > scandale of it > all. > > The mass-circulation press tends to lag far behind the > developments in > the art world, still trying to fully assimilate > Impressionism and Van > Gogh, Cubism, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, etc. At > least, as a > lifeline for the press, Pop Art--now at least 50 years > old--seems to > be more "gettable," if only because it uses > popular images as > malleable subject matter, which the press generates as > their intended > *meaning* and *purpose* [pace, Cheerskep]. > > As for the astronomic prices, well, as you say, William, > that's just > bubble-economics. It's a bigger-fool gambit, and in its > own way isn't > very different from paying a few actors $10-$20,000,000 for > one movie > role while most actors make much, much less for many more > roles. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
