Baby, Hold on to Me

An interesting article in the New York Times today got me thinking about the rules of art auctions and how they can be a double-edged sword.

The article (which you can read HERE) talks about how collectors (in particular, Craig Robbins, pictured above) who resell artwork they've bought on the primary market (or directly from the artist's representative) on the secondary market (or resale galleries/auctions) can be blacklisted for doing so too soon or even at all.

What's interesting is the way that strict unwritten (or according to the Times, written) rules govern the way collectors are allowed to buy and sell artwork if they want to stay in with the in crowd. It's a terrible faux-pas to resell art too soon after purchasing; it makes the work seem like a financial gamble instead of a masterpiece. It's even less couth to resell a work of art within a few years of being at auction, because, particularly with the growth of sites like artnet.com, the auction record is available publicly and everyone knows on exactly what day the work sold for and for how much--down to the penny.

But the granddaddy of all scarlet letters for artwork is the "BI" (short for Bought-In, or not sold at auction). For the rest of the artwork's life, no matter how lovely and well-priced, the work will always struggle because of its unshakable mark of BI-ness. It doesn't matter why the work BI'ed--there could have been, say, a volcano, that blocked all flights to the auction, or maybe just no good buyers for a very good work with a fair value--people don't want art that has BI'ed

When you think about all the risks involved, it's easy to wonder, why the hell would anyone ever auction off anything? The flip-side of the auction coin is that it can be a great way to raise some quick cash and/or to deaccession works that you just don't have time to deal with. And the there's always the promise of a jackpot--the Picasso or the Doig or the Giacometti that suddenly sells for far beyond the high estimate not only making you rich, but also changing the whole game.

Shear Loveliness

Francois-Xavier Lalanne's sheep, both fluffy and stone, seem to keep popping up in my life and they are so stinking cute I can't handle it. They're apparently impossible to get your hands on, and it's just kind of funny that such a cute and silly decorative sculpture is so trendy. But I still have to sheepishly admit that I adore these little guys.

When You Point One Finger at MoMA, Three Point Back at You.

While reading this week's big article about performance art in the New York Times, I came across THIS:

"But often, performance at MoMA itself has consisted of unsanctioned protest actions against the museum. In 1969, for instance, the Guerilla Art Action Group removed Malevich’s “White on White” (1918) from the wall and replaced it with a manifesto. Also that year four members of that group stormed the lobby, held a wrestling match and fled, leaving behind a pool of animal blood and handbills demanding the resignation of all the Rockefellers from the museum board."

The next sentence from the article appears in parentheses, though it seems terribly important to me: "(Documentation from these events is now owned by MoMA and can be seen in the show “1969” at P.S.1 through April 5.)"

It's in those parentheses where we learn that MoMA acquired documentation of protests against the institution itself and now displays them. I'm not really sure what to make of this, and I wonder what the Guerilla Art Action Group thinks about it (especially since there are still several Rockefellers on the board). In addition, P.S.1 charges admission, so these protest documents have actually begun making the institution money.

I'm sure the Guerilla Art Action Group is pleased that their role in art history is being recognized by a major museum, but the idea still seems a little contradictory. Are MoMA's intentions simply to show art history as it happened or are there other forces at work? Maybe MoMA wants street cred for celebrating those who take aim at it, a la Sarah Palin and Saturday Night Live?

Roberta Smith also Loves Craig Norton

You may remember back in May, we blogged about Craig Norton and how he's awesome (HERE). Well now he has a show in Chelsea a Jim Kempner Fine Art and Roberta Smith totally loved the show. Read her review HERE.

God, we're so ahead of the curve.

Bent Out of Shape with Terry Border

I recently came across the work of artist Terry Border, known for his book, blog, videos, cards, and ads under the brand "Bent Objects." While we've all seen clever (or really, not-so-clever) food photography, Mr. Border's work stands in a category of its own because of its humor, bawdiness, and references to culture, both pop and otherwise.

Full of art historical references, Bent Objects pokes fun at artists as varied as Frida Khalo, Andy Warhol, Robert Indiana, Vincent Van Gogh, and Edward Weston (seen in the photograph above). It also jokes about Hamlet, zombie movies, strippers, fast food, pharmaceuticals, and the artist's own baldness.

They're very funny and a big hit all over the internet.

Check out Border's work and musings here: http://bentobjects.blogspot.com

And buy prints here: http://www.etsy.com/shop/bentobjects

I Got Giaco-money in the Bank.

So last night Alberto Giacometti’s Walking Man I broke the auction sales record, selling at Sotheby's in London for $104.3 Million. Estimated to sell at just $20-28 Million (oh a mere $20 mil?), everyone wants to know who the hell bought this thing for so much money? Seriously.

The previous record holder was Picasso's Boy with Pipe which sold for $104.1 Million in 2004. There are two things that really shock me about this record being broken by this piece:

1. It's one of an edition of 6 + 1 AP. So its not a unique object.

2. Picasso is, well, Picasso. He's so highly regarded by people in the arts and is a household name. Giacometti is certainly one of the last century's greats, but he doesn't carry the same clout as Picasso.

It's unbelievable to think someone could spend over $100 Mil on one object. I mean even if you are worth $1 billion, that's 10% of you net worth. And we're not even talking about $100 Mil of your net worth, this is an amount existing in cash, ready for spending.

As much as I love the arts, its this kind of spending that makes me so conflicted about this field. $100 Mil could do so many good things. And beyond that, earning that kind of money is inevitably done on the backs of cheap labor and exploitation. Not that I can't say that my entire doesn't life rests on exploitation; the clothes I'm wearing, the computer I'm typing on, the table the computer sits on...I know people died for them. This is another topic for another time, but the whole idea that there are people worth more than the GDP of Zimbabwe who spend like this is so complicated and morally ambiguous for me. How can we reward hard work without rewarding exploitation? Is it really impossible?

Betting the F***ART

I ususally think of museum big-wigs as being humorless, pretentious, and tightly-wound (sorry, ya'll, that's just been my experience.) However, the directors at the Indianapolis Museum of Art and the New Orleans Museum of Art are upending my stereotyping by making wagers on the superbowl--winner gets a work from the other museum on loan for three months! There's been one-upping, trash-talking, and a deal has finally been reached. Guess the Art Capital Group isn't the only organization making bets with artwork these days...

See the full story here: http://www.artsjournal.com/man/2010/01/art_museum_director_super_bowl.html

Don't Fear the Reaper, Fear Adult Education Classes

So people are all worked into a frenzy about this old lady who ripped a Picasso at the Met. There are two burning issues in my mind right now on this topic:

1. What was this woman doing/wearing to literally rip a huge hole in a painting? I'm imagining her wearing some goth outfit covered in spikes (see above) or having some crazy big Flo-Jo nails. Maybe granny's got a little shiv in her pocket to keep herself safe on the mean streets of the Upper East Side?

2. Knowing that this painting will be painstakingly repaired by the best restorers in the world, it's interesting that people are still so worried about this. Anyone who's seen a patched hole in a canvas knows that when done well, no one can tell. I anticipate that the painting will look exactly the same as it did two days ago (just as casino magnate Stephen Wynn's Picasso does post-patch). Certainly it's worth noting that the work is on a delicate old piece of fabric that must be handled with care and that could suffer further damage from being moved and handled during restoration. What I'm trying to say is this: since the painting is going to be visually the same, are people afraid of the monetary loss or does thinking about the fact that even timeless objects decay and get damaged make us fear death? I've always kind of wondered if the whole idea of restoration is largely about our fear of death; if stopping the decay on an object lets us feel like we're evading the reaper.

The Deaccessioning Debate Rages on

As more and more museum personnel see themselves getting laid off, the AAMD (Association of Art Museum Directors) continues to view deaccessioning (selling off artwork to pay the bills) as the cardinal sin of museum management. They argue that selling off works to pay the bills encourages poor management and bad use of funds, but in this economy does that argument still hold water?

My new FAVORITE blog, The Art Law Blog, talks about this controversy: http://theartlawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-on-fresno-museum-closing.html.