1.34 Billion In Gifts To An Artist
August 24, 2009 by Janice
I have some reading to catch up on from yesterday’s paper. Mostly about art and money. Always a scintillating topic. And I have yet to read the magazine cover story about the “cause of our times” which it seems they have determined is women’s rights.
Not sure they are very zen like, but I made tea anyway.
Here’s the truth: amid all the paint at the moment, I am almost equally drawn to juicy tales in the arts. It has to do with researching collectors. And the stories just happen.
It’s a funny thing about art and money. They are inextricably bound. And no matter how you feel about the two, where you find one, you find the other. Not always as you want it, or when you want it, or how, but there they are. And things get interesting because of it. Because money and art both have a strange and intriguing pull.
Check out he story of the L’Oreal heiress who has so far gifted 1.34 billion to a single “artist”. (You’ve probably seen his cover shot of Johnny Depp this summer on Vanity Fair.) Her daughter is not a happy camper even though it is a small fraction of her mother’s wealth. The French are taking it to tribunal…ahh, who will buy the movie rights?
When great quantities of money and art are involved it seems there is an equal and opposite reaction…like the other article on corporate sponsorship of exhibitions. Yay, sponsorship, yay, great art on exhibit. What’s the rub there? It depends. If you are corporate and the public- big win. You get to see work not usually seen. The Corporation gets lots of good will. If you are a museum or a curator your “purity” is called into question. Two reasons: who is calling the curatorial shots? ( hugely important discernment, it’s the story of the show) and the corporation can up-value the work if it puts said exhibition pieces on the market after a museum show. (Get more money if they sell them afterwards, using the prestige of the show. ) It’s a sticky wicket requiring the utmost care. Does it matter? Well, yes, it does. You can see the temptation to use the event as a way to create pricier prices on not so great pieces peppered into the mix. And curators/museums could get a very “I can be bought” reputation. So there is a fine line.
Art and money create strange bedfellows. There is no getting around that. To an artist, we keep it out of the studio, out of the process as much as possible. There is a taint associated with an over concern with money. But it is right there at the door, certainly a necessity, and it certainly permeates every aspect of the art world outside the artist’s studio. We usually are the ones hoping it trickles in as well as up and down. Well, we do, don’t we? No matter what art we are engaged in?
It’s always an exchange isn’t it?
And it is a statement on human interests and nature that most of the art stories that ever get printed in a big way, are the ones that have some big money attached to them. The process stories are more buried, require a bit more looking.
So while I am organizing my painting for this week on this Organizing Monday, I am also organizing a trip down to see an exhibit of privately owned contemporary pieces in exhibition. Works hauled out from collectors homes that normally we wouldn’t see. No, no corporate sponsorship, just Medici like bucks involved here. It will be verra vera nice.
I want to see what kind of pond I may be swimming in. And what kind of stories they may tell.
And where could I fit in? Me, just a splasher and puddler of paint.
The artist smiles…I sense a small adventure.
How are all of you this Monday?
Comments
11 Responses to “1.34 Billion In Gifts To An Artist”
Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
I liked the “Medici-like-bucks” comment. Life was easier for some, back in the days where patrons supported the arts … as long as you had a patron!
About corporate sponsorship of exhibitions.
I see the problem but what about museums exhibiting works of living artists ? Won’t that up-value their work, won’t tehy get more money for their works afterwards, using the prestige of the show ?
Where is the fine line there ?
And what about museums which have sold (Rose Art Museum, Montclair Art Museum) or maybe will have to sold work of their own collection in times of crisis ?
Hi Kari,
We all would love that Medici-like element in our lives wouldn’t we? I, for one, love anyone who displays the least little Medici tendencies… good for everyone IMHO
Welcome Stampfli and Turci,
Yes, quite so. For living artists a museum show is credential building/ value creating. It’s a further validation in the traditional sense isn’t it? But the artist is not sponsoring the show, only supplying the work. Seems like a reasonable benefit. Not buying the reputation I guess you would say.
I am in favor of legitimate corporate sponsorship personally. The article raised questions about curatorial purity. But I think most professionals care very much about their reputations as well as their jobs.
I suspect there are lots of secondary sales going on this year. I saw an interview with Frank Stella who was aware that many collectors are trying to convert their collectibles into cash to stem the negative cash flow. But you are a dealer, you would know more about this than I would.
I suspect not many museums can tread water for very long. It’s like having to pawn the silver isn’t it when they have to let go of valued pieces?
Uh oh!
Collectors usually relinquish works for exhibition just before they send em to the auction block=good PR
Better run go see what they wanna lose soon. It adds nicely to the provenence to see a museum name and pic…ahem
eeep – provenance!
Hi C,
I did not know that.. although it makes sense. Some of these pieces I am going to see are promised gifts to the museum I do believe. I wonder if that ups the value upon bequest ? ( larger write off)
It is an interesting balance the creative and the practical. Art and money. Long term, money will come to good art. But we artists may be dead when it arrives!
Todd,
LOL Still laughing.. seems that way at times doesn’t it?
yeah, sometimes I lose patience, but I love what I do and I keep learning the business side every day. who knows, maybe I’ll just be old, not dead, when it arrives!
Oooh, I love a good art/money drama and this post was dripping with enough intrigue to make me salivate. lol! Ah, tis the rub isn’t it? Art and money strange bedfellows indeed but only because we human beings assign way too much power to money. Can money corrupt? Of course but it can also be freeing. The artist who is not starving and not locked into a creative box by the chains of compensation is free to create, to be inspired to indulge passion. The starving artist may be free but they’re hungry! And hungry is just wrong in my book.
Hi Karen,
Great to see you here. How are you?
I agree. The artist must have a sense of freedom to be successful at creating. If you allow yourself to be manipulated by the source of your money, you are not free. And if you are starving, you are not free. There has to be an independence from both extremes for the creative juices to flow.