Fischl: Change in Gallery System
Here's an interesting quote from celebrated figurative painter Eric Fischl concerning the current gallery system (reprinted from "Hampton Jitney Magazine"): "What has changed over these last decades is the gallery system. Galleries are in transition now because of the art fairs, auction houses, and the internet. Primary dealers are becoming obsolete. Younger artists understand this implicitly and so don't tie themselves down to one dealer. They are generally more entrepreneurial than my generation was.
Also, collectors are driving the art world more now than in the past. They are able to find young artists before dealers and curators find them. In fact, dealers and curators look to collectors to see who they should be paying attention to. That has been a big change.
The downside is that the new collectors don't seem to know or care that much about the history of art and so approach art in much the same manner as they do their business. They look for trends. They try and corner markets. They buy low and sell high. They treat art as a commodity. It is what they know and what they do best. Good for business, bad for art."
| More Blogs by Norbert Marszalek | Email Norbert Marszalek
Comments
My generalized statement would be that it is good for the art, and the artist, since there are more options open to the artist. I think it can work out fine for the gallerist, as well, since it allows them to wheel and deal without worrying about making artist happy. Seems like a market more reliant on the individual than a system.
Posted by: Sean | December 26, 2005 06:47 PM
Posted by: wesley kimler | December 27, 2005 05:38 AM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 27, 2005 01:27 PM
Posted by: Ricardo Manuel Diaz | December 28, 2005 12:48 PM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 28, 2005 02:00 PM
Posted by: Sean | December 28, 2005 02:18 PM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 28, 2005 02:51 PM
I once heard someone suggest a business called "Art Car", which is a limo which takes people around to artist studios. Each artist serves wine, some food. The visitors can then buy or browse. The MCA has something like this, but they seem more exclusive and less populist, which I think artists need to be to survive, until they can afford to be more discriminating.
Posted by: Sean | December 28, 2005 03:45 PM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 28, 2005 04:18 PM
Posted by: David Roth | December 28, 2005 04:34 PM
Posted by: Ricardo Manuel Diaz | December 28, 2005 06:56 PM
Posted by: Sean | December 28, 2005 10:37 PM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 29, 2005 10:22 AM
I believe that in order for the artworld to work to everyone's advantage artists and galleries need to define for themselves what they want and expect from each other. If the grass is always greener on the other side and there's this sterotypical lure of fame, money, the next big collector - artists and galleries are going to continue to swim where the waters are warm and not necessarily with each other.
Kevin Freitas
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | December 29, 2005 12:14 PM
..................................sharkforum welcomes input, when intelligent observation and opinion, devoid of venal, insipid insults/remarks is offered up, it will find its way on to our site-
Posted by: wesley | December 29, 2005 12:41 PM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 29, 2005 03:56 PM
Posted by: sean | December 29, 2005 04:11 PM
Posted by: Sean | December 29, 2005 04:14 PM
Sean, I don't believe anymore in Fairy Tales than I do someone pretending to be a purveyor of taste and intelligence when it comes to speaking, writing, thinking, blogging or even making art.
Norbert hit on it with his question about finding "respectable" venues to show. This is where I was refering to the working together part - the lure of credibility. Decide for yourself what you want, need to survive, and if you want to work with someone or not. I'm not expecting a handout but I think a lot of artists are when chasing fame, glory, respectability/credibility by association to an individual, group, gallery, curator etc.
My guess is in museums and on display. People used to say that about the 80s lot of artists, and their stature does die down for a time after the selling abates, but once an artist reaches that price level, collectors can't afford to let his fame wane. Now 100 years, sure, many will be forgotten and relegated to the warehouse.
I think this just tells more about the artist's notoriety, selling/staying power, quality/interest of the work than any speculative practices. Which brings up the question who lets Peyton and Currin's work get to this level? Or for that matter, Fischl's?
Kevin Freitas
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | December 29, 2005 05:30 PM
Posted by: wesleykimler | December 29, 2005 11:58 PM
Posted by: Sean | December 30, 2005 12:22 AM
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 30, 2005 11:00 AM
Wesley, I liked Currin's work, but I'm open to hear why you think he's a fake. Is it the content, the style, the skill, or something else?
I do think he is a bit too fashionable ....the portraits of his model-wife only encourages this idea.
Posted by: Sean | December 30, 2005 01:15 PM
What makes a Van Gogh worth $50,000,000.00? Some Japanese businessman who knows nothing at all about ART plays the art market and pays this amount because someone suggested it was a good deal. It is all so silly.
This is not what art is about. So far all I have read in this blog is things that have to do with money and commerce. Which brings me back to my original post, something about used car salesman and accountants. These conversations do nothing for the spirit of art or artists.
Sean you speak with great authority while in the "safety" (a word you seem to use alot) of your computer keyboard, love to know abit more about you and the rest of you. Wesley, I met once in his studio a few years back. Found you to be an intelligent, talented and passionate fellow. What about the idea of holding some these discussions face to face without the "safety" of your computer screen. Perhaps once a month, or every two months. Peace
Posted by: Ricardo Manuel Diaz | December 30, 2005 08:26 PM
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | December 30, 2005 09:07 PM
Like it or not Kevin, dumb luck plays a huge roll in our success and failures -
Posted by: Norbert Marszalek | December 30, 2005 09:44 PM
Posted by: tnowakowski | January 12, 2007 08:45 AM