Ideas are free opinions are costly
On 1/11/12 5:45 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: I agree you shouldn't write for free. I shouldn't either but I have no integrity so I give away my good ideas. I do think I should stop doing that, though.. ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, January 11, 2012 4:33:59 PM Subject: Re: "Art collectors are good because they help the painters, but they are bad insofar as they give too much importance to those arts that can be bought and sold." You want to keep reading the opinions of "...a sick minded individual"--FOR FREE? As Kim K. would probably say: - You are just sooooooooooooo 20th-century. Let's get REAL. Like, prostitution whores don't come cheap anymore. I MEAN, do you think that I look this way because I buy fake eyelashes at Kmart--when they're on sale?: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3onjCtukURE/TlTbtD_ayjI/AAAAAAAAAEE/n8Wr03W34-4/s32 0/kim+k.jpg On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:00 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Alright, I agree with almost every word you say (and maybe every word) but > there > are collectors of another sort, the many thousands who do buy good work > that is > not in the mix of the tiny slice of work you mention. However, I do agree > that > instead of seeing the art market as divided into several sectors, or > categories, > each with different value structures, it is perceived as a continuum or > sliding > scale from low to high under one set of values. That wrong perception of > reality is bad, no doubt. > > I've said before that when you have the cash to spend 25 million on an icon > piece, say, a big pretty heart by Jeff Koons, it's merely a convenient way > to > park money in uncertain times. Besides your equally rich friends and > competitors will quickly buy it from you at the next auction, thereby > having > their own tax-free-hassle-free place to park their money. When will the > bubble > break? The big museums are supporting this (see today's NYT re new Met > curator) and they win too because at some point, after the piece has maxed > out > in bubble-appreciation, it can be given to a museum for a total > appreciation > write off. Everybody in the game wins. But trouble is, most good art and > art > values are not in the game anymore. That doesn't mean it's not marketable > but > that the market for it is largely off the radar and that means it doesn't > get > much attention and thus doesn't count for art history, yet. > > When you think about it, there are only a few things you can buy at the > top end > of the material culture that don't incur huge maintenance costs and lots of > worry about volatility. High end art is one of them. Buy it with cash. > Put it > in your Park Ave. apt. fully insured, and enjoy the social prestige it can > provide that mere money can't. You will not lose money at all and you can > sell > it to someone else next year at a gain. You can't do that with a yacht, or > a big > castle in CT., or a company, all of which are packed with hidden and > obvious > costs and are subject to big market forces. High end art is insulated > because > because it's not in the mix of the big market forces. > > Your comments make more sense than the journalism you often quote. Why > not give > us more of your own thoughts and a lot less of the compromised (always > serving > some boss constituency) stuff you love to quote? > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, January 11, 2012 12:14:49 AM > Subject: Re: "Art collectors are good because they help the painters, but > they > are bad insofar as they give too much importance to those arts that can be > bought and sold." > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 1:08 PM, William Conger <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Berg, you're veering off again into the land of very dumb qoutations. > > Stop it. > > Get back on track with some sensible comments such as your recent posts. > > > > But I think that it is very relevant to realize that in any system, once > the money people get the upper hand (e.g., collectors), then rather than > work the system, they start trying to get the system to work for them by > manipulating it to make it even more profitable for themselves, i.e., they > turn the system into an auction where the highest bidders (the collectors > who spend the most) begin to call the shots as to what is valuable and what > is not. > > Quickly escalating value starts redefining any values that previously > existed and then what happens is that the highest bidders try to create a > flavor-of-the-month mentality which is even more profitable and what the > fashion industry is all about, i.e., something is hot for the moment and > then the small potato collectors are made to feel insecure as the big > cheese collectors play a kind of bait-and-switch to create a gold rush > state of mind among the mob. Sort of like a ponzi scheme where > the latecomers are lured by the early birds who are now in a position > profit most from the system. > > "Jump on the bandwagon, or you'll be left behind" is what the small potato > collectors are made to think as they chase after the latest not knowing > that the big cheese collectors have already taken the best of the latest > for themselves: > > The institution of art (where it's about values) => industry of art (where > it's about profits) => racket (where it's about getting even more profits > by hook or by crook, usually crook, (e.g., deception, exploitation) Saul Ostrow Independent Critic and Curator Art Editor at lodge , Bomb Magazine Member of the Board College Art Association Associate Prof. of Art Chair, Visual Arts & Technologies Environment The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106 Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | www.cia.edu
