I am also reminded of the recent discovery that some painting was found to actually have been the work of some famous painter, and its price instantly increased by orders of magnitude; the painting, meanwhile, remained unchanged. And then there's the usual sickening fact that there are such wealthy people in the world while others starve... But look at me pissing on the parade; it was interesting.
The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little. Note that this is a relatively new phenomenon. Marketing really only came into its own post-war. There's a reason Mad Men is set in the '50s: That was before we grew disillusioned with marketing. For that matter, recorded music and moving images are relatively new, historically speaking. Yet for roughly half that time, they have been the primary means with which to sell things. This is changing. When the head of Saatchi and Saatchi says "marketing is dead" it means, at a bare minimum, that those who market for a living are considering new ways to get their message across. It only took Google introducing "Search+Your World" for the term "SEO" to cough and sputter - everyone is now talking about "SMO" or "Social Media Optimization." Print media is already dying. The kidz no longer watch television on television. How the hell do you market when nobody watches your ads, nobody listens to your jingles, and the only place they'll see your print campaign is on the side of a bus? I suspect the advertising world is about to change, and change dramatically. We're likely to go back to consuming "art" because we like it. "Art because we like it" is not what drives $100m Jackson Pollack purchases. That's all speculation. It's "greater fool theory." There is nothing intrinsic in a Jackson Pollack that commands $100m. Here's an article in Scientific American challenging the notion that you can use fractal theory to tell a real Jackson Pollack from a fake one: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fractal... ...if even the use of higher math is questionable in telling a real one from a fake one, where's the "value" in a real one? The argument is not that there is no value in art. The argument is that art is overvalued. Much like there is inherent value in Tokyo real estate, however, there isn't $93k per square foot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble So if Banksy's right, and all the artists are working in advertising... and the doomsayers are right, and art is in a speculative bubble... what happens when all the artists who can't work in advertising start working in art? There are mathematically two choices: either more money is spent on more art, or the same amount of money is spent on more art. The thing about art, particularly from a speculative standpoint, is that it relies on exclusivity. If there are seven thousand prints of an Escher, it's worth a lot less than if there are seven prints of an Escher. Of course, if there are seven thousand prints of an Escher there are 6,993 more people who get to hang it on their wall... and people will pay for that. They won't pay $100 million, but they'll pay $10. In order for that Pollack to hold its value, it will have to be consistently held to be worth more than anything that comes before or since. Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" blew people's minds in '87 when it sold for $53m - that was the first time any "new artist" had been sold for that much money. Look at the list now: among the top ten, 1876 is the latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_painting... Most of that list, in fact, is 20th century art. Had you sunk your fortune into Dutch masters in 1985 you would be experiencing a very real loss right now. ...and that's presuming nobody new starts making art. here's the thing. You can go down to any gallery in any town and buy art that you like for not a lot of money. As I recall, I suggested you do this and you did. How was the experience? Pleasant? Would you recommend it to someone else? The playing field is now flat. The only thing that separates Damien Hirst from whoever painted that piece you bought is Damien Hirst is "known" to the art world. And they're slow and ossified but the Internet will catch up to them, too. I'm part of an art "experiment" that I'm not at liberty to discuss right now. Give it six months or so. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think we're going to singlehandedly pop the "art" bubble. But I think that there will be money made.
That struck me too. It smells of a game. I'm part of an art "experiment" that I'm not at liberty to discuss right now. Give it six months or so. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think we're going to singlehandedly pop the "art" bubble. You must share when you can. IMHO modern art is such a wasteland because the money follows reputation and says nothing about the art itself. Which of course, is what you are saying about Hirst. I think good modern art is possible, it is just that popular modern art is almost shit by default. If so much effort has been put into reputation, then it's exploring that. Who wants to look at another Andy Warhol? Great art is singular because only that artist could have made the piece. I disagree with Banksy about the self-possessed part. I find most modern artists to be ridiculously obsessed with the audience. Self-possessed suggests to me someone that is looking inward and reporting what they find. Hirst is a performer. His relationships give his art value.
Can you divulge the nature of your experiment yet?
Ah, I see. I forgot that italics were the old way of I envisioned you breaking on to the modern art scene with some of your own work. -not inconceivable btw. At some point we should have that Hubski art show.quoting
.
This lovely phrase is usually used whenever a stock is trading at some irrational level that no sensible person can explain. To say that, for example, Facebook is "unhinged from fundamentals" means "there's no fucking way Facebook has an actual market value ten times as high as Google." Note that people still trade on things that are "unhinged from fundamentals." They just acknowledge that the market is now displaying "irrational exhuberance" (thanks, Greenspan) and that no matter how many annual reports you read, you will not be able to accurately predict value because "accuracy" has become passe. There are two prevailing sentiments about modern art. Doesn't matter who you ask, doesn't matter where you ask. Anyone, from lay person to expert, will tell you two things: 1) it's expensive 2) it sucks These two sentiments are mutually exclusive. There will be a correction. I don't know what form it will take, but it will take form.
I have also worked with other "artists" outside of the professional marketing scene for things like posters, video's etc. -They suck. Most graphic artists that aren't in professional marketing are lazy, ill equipt and unimaginative. All this said, it's worth noting that my insanely talented friend that branded your Mac 'N Cheese is so fed up with corporate America that he recently left his job and he and his girlfriend are going to live on a CSA farm for a year and own shares in the crop. He threw away a nice salary at a very reputable firm to go get his hands dirty and re-connect. To your larger point: Supply is going to get heavy as people like my cousin's boyfriend start flooding the art scene again. But let's face it, Renior and Van Gogh aren't making any new work any time soon. I think for the sake of argument, we need to separate this top 10 list from the contemporary art scene. It's like saying that an original copy of the declaration of independence will someday depreciate. -It very well might, but it's far less likely than a Damien Hirst piece depreciating. Two very different conversations. I'm part of an art "experiment" that I'm not at liberty to discuss right now. Give it six months or so. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. I don't think we're going to singlehandedly pop the "art" bubble.
But I think that there will be money made. -Color me curious. Look forward to hearing more when it's appropriate and wish you well in your endeavors. lets get some PM :) Aside: the rarest thing I've found in the music/art world is someone that is prepared, on time and passionate. I hate that having dread-locks and a conga drum somehow make you an artist, even though you show up late, are stoned beyond function and have no sense of purpose. (by the way many conga players with dreadlocks are artists and very talented ones, I just went to school in Missoula and I'm jaded.) -End of rant.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/14/nyregion/a-renoir-leads-a-... http://oneartworld.com/artists/P/Pierre-Auguste+Renoir.html?... Indeed. Thing of it is, though, if you look at the "traditional" artists, those outside the bubble, they seem to be trading about where people expect them to trade. And they will likely continue to do so. Until, at some point, people are no longer interested in them, or they become interested in someone else. I've been fond of Richard Dadd for quite a while. I like his style, and the fact that he was batshit crazy adds a little. Likewise, Louis Wain - his descent into schizophrenia and the effect on his art is Psych 101 stuff. However, most people really don't give much of a shit - you can buy original Wain watercolors for about $12k. Richard Dadd was similarly unknown for most of the 20th century. Then something changed. That something was The Antiques Roadshow: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_ob... The Tate did a retrospective because of that. The other thing to keep in mind is that the longer an artist is around, the more likely his art is to end up in a museum somewhere. Here's a completely unsubstantiated theory - there's simply more shite nouveau art available than Dutch Masters so there's more of a market for speculators. Are the same people who collect Dutch masters collecting Mr. Brainwash? I don't think so. I have no evidence of that. I know that the art I like tends to be pretty similar. I like surrealism, I like lush, and I like landscapes. Which means I favor Klimt, Magritte, Dali, Escher, Parrish, Bierstadt and Terbush. They all have this in common: each and every one of those fuckers knows how to paint. Someone posted a Basquiat up in here a couple days ago - I hate Basquiat. "Primitive?" Unskilled. My opinion, my opinion alone - but opinion is what drives purchasing. A friend of mine created the "SoCo&Lime" campaign. There's a painting of hers hanging in the gear room. She'd totally do art for a living if she could; instead she's client-side. We'll see what the future holds, right? Your aside is interesting. My motto has long been "work hard, be nice, don't suck." A lot of people forget that being on time and doing the job adequately is 90% of it if you are also a pleasure to work with.
The Grateful Dead were a great band but that scene drives me nuts. I equate that scene with Dali, Escher and Klimt. -Not their fault but when I see this: http://i.imgur.com/4Imk9.jpg I think of this: http://i.imgur.com/EUabE.jpg
Had a spare 30 minutes last night and finally jumped in to Thank You For Arguing -Great stuff! It has to be the most pragmatic read ever. This should be mandatory reading for everyone but since it's not, the Jedi mind tricks will be even easier to wield. -Thanks again.
I just went and saw this exhibition yesterday http://www.dia.org/calendar/exhibition.aspx?id=2306. Its breathtaking to be in a room with a dozen Rembrandt paintings and several dozen prints and drawings. I love some modern and impressionist artists, but I've never been stunned by any of them like I am by Rembrandt or Bosch or Breugel, or any of the Italian masters. Art was different back then.