Berg's article originated in Standpoint and was reprinted at Financial Review. For those not familiar with Standpoint, the Wiki background is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_(magazine) and the online version of the magazine is here: http://standpointmag.co.uk/standpoint
As for current criticism of artists' financial wealth, versus the lack of criticism towards those who have gotten rich off other creative endeavors, the work of scientists, engineers, architects, etc. is not judged on the basis of whatever Romantic narrative they can spin successfully. Your bridge falls down or it doesn't. On the other hand, especially since the early twentieth century, art has been pushed in an almost religious fashion, just about any dreck at all can become successful if a moral narrative can be woven around its creator. The problem then is when that moral narrative breaks down - when the public finds out that artists, like everyone else, still puts their pants on one leg at a time - there's nothing left of value, except whatever resides in the work itself. I tend to think of it as a very hopeful sign. Cheers; Chris On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, December 22, > 2012 8:56:08 AM > Subject: Re: "Even what they grandly call b the aestheticb > will recognise the > sovereignty of markets." > > Berg's article was from an > Australian newspaper,which may account for > its prose. I thought the post you > made of your friend explaining the > difference between speculative prices and > real prices was about as > clear as this problem is going to get. > I am sorry to > say that I didn't read this post before saying you > were coming through > clear-it is scrambled. Either you did something as > you opened your email or it > is a glitch from turning the computer on > since everything has been arriving > fine up until now. > Kate Sullivan > -----Original Message----- > From: William > Conger <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Dec 22, 2012 9:36 am > Subject: Re: > "Even what they grandly call bthe aestheticb will > recognise the sovereignty of > markets." > > Regarding the article cited by Berg, I want to say it follows a > trite > mode of > argument: using a few examples of to make a universal > supposition that > ignores > the real complexity of an issue. The surrounding > reality of any issue > that > involves ethics, morality, or taste is suffused by > ordinary human > frailty. > After all, we are immersed in the human world -- the > coarse, confused, > conflicted, contentious, corrupt (see how many words there > are with each > letter > of the alphabet to describe our social reality). It is > just plain > stupid to > assume that artists and their patrons should be beyond > the sphere > of reality and > be fairy-tale free from ordinary material interests > when it > comes to making and > trading artworks. Outside of some cult practices > where > artworks perform a > magical function, people always and everywhere have > linked > artworks and money > just as they have everything else. > > Artists make > artworks; > that is, they propose what they make as art, and the > society -- > either one > patron or many or a institutional practice -- decide if > it's really > art, and > their decisions are always conditional. I'm not sure why > artists are > always > held to standards similar to the standards for sainthood > (including at > least > three miracles of art?) where other creative people are > praised for > their > similarly miraculous successes. I've never heard of anyone > complaining > about, say, Jonas Salk, or Thomas Edison, making personal fortunes > from their > 'art'. Even in the other arts, one usually only finds praise for > architects, > authors, and playwrights who attain fame AND fortune. Artists, the > creators, > must live in this world and survive by its rules, but they aim for the > lofty, > something beyond the reach of vulgarity. > > The real issue is not money and > art > but to note the dividing line, if it exists, > between the lofty condition > that > Western art has defined for itself over the > centuries and the vulgar > condition, so presumed, of mass commercial imagery in a > runaway capitalist > culture. > > Nowadays is almost impossible to define the condition of the > 'lofty' > for even > the word is unsued anymore and seems to pertain only to > values that > were once > enshrined by religious faith, meaning of course, > otherworldly and > therefore > beyond quantitative measure. The fact that some > artworks are being > traded for > huge sums of money, seemingly glorifying their > kitschy, commercial > vulgarity, > may really signify a immense longing for the > lofty, as if to > demonstrate that > ideal pricelessness is yet attainable, not > by faith alone but > for all the money > in the world. > > The fallacy in that > reasoning is, of course, > obvious if one presumes the lofty > to be priceless > because it is a state of > mind, a belief, or a feeling -- the > aesthetic itself > -- and not merely > something that costs more than anything else > or all the > money in the world. > You cannot buy the lofty but you can have it > freely as > you do your own > self-hood. You can have the worldly, the vulgar, at > some > price from small to > all the money there is. > > There are some artworks, claimed > to be lofty, to be > had for a penny; others that > cost millions or hundreds of > millions (When will > a billion be reached?). > > I'm off to my studio now. I'll > perform a miracle > there. A little painting. > You can buy it for the price of > a mere luxury > object. But it is priceless and > the money you pay is simply a > guarantee that > I will eat and survive -- together > with the art suppliers, > dealers, landlords, > etc., --- in the swamp of vulgarity > we call culture. > So, feed the saints and > believe that the lofty can be > affirmed. Or, pay a > penny and there will still > be the lofty but no-one will be > able to reach for > it. > > It's ludicrous and > ironic for the Wall Street Journal to publish an > article > lamenting the excess > money in the artworld while being dedicated to > bulging > profits in all other > sectors no matter what ecess of Artworks are > things or > pseudo-things. All > things and pseudo-things are monetized. Thus > artworks are > monetized. > ________________________________ > From: joseph > berg <[email protected]> > To: > aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: > Sat, December 22, 2012 > 2:42:11 AM > Subject: "Even what they grandly call bthe > aestheticb will > recognise the > sovereignty of markets." > http://www.afr.com/p/national/arts_saleroom/contemporary_art_how_the_tables_V > ubp2juRPC5sqTRmsYqJ7M
