Plagens v. Hughes

The debate between the critic and the art market took an  unexpected turn earlier this week when Peter Plagens wrote this response to Robert Hughes’s angry film about the art market, “The Mona Lisa Curse:”

Big money has always been entwined with fine art, because fine art is expensive and has to be purchased with funds that don’t have to be strictly accounted for. The pharoahs could go off-books for their palace and temple blings, so could the ancient Greeks and Romans, so could the medieval church, so could Renaissance counts and dukes, so could Enlightenment kings, so could wealthy Dutch burghers, so could American robber-barons (whose collections and founded institutions make possible much of the art-for-art’s-sake sentiment Hughes longs for), and so can–with some intricate accounting–the likes of Steven A. Cohen. Auction prices in the millions are startling, but they shouldn’t be any more startling than Federal budgets in the trillions or AOL’s tip-sheet bulletin to economizing home-buyers, “What you can get for $900,000.” In the art world as everywhere else, the money required to play is bigger, hours are longer, the competition sharper, and the tolerances closer. In the old days when Robert Rauschenberg (in the film, Hughes’s seeming favorite artist) was a revelation, one could rent a downtown storefront for a couple of hundred bucks a month, slap some flat white latex paint on the walls, put up some track lights, and get your significant other to sit at the reception desk, and you had a shot at becoming an “important” gallery. Today, the up-front money is half a mil to a mil, backers (who want to make a profit) are needed, sophisticated networking and public relations are required, and the gallery needs to be able to run in the red for three years. [Read more...]

Koons is Aggressive & Short

New York Magazine‘s critic Jerry Saltz loses his patience with Jeff Koons, Dakkis Joannou, The New Museum and a few others:

the overwhelming impression I came away with was, Wow, these two guys are really sick puppies. They’ve got sex, shit, birth, and death on the brain. Maybe we all do. But the work displayed here is especially aggressive, and short on nuance, subtlety, and seduction. Perhaps to the New Museum’s credit, much of it would never be shown in any other major New York museum. It’s hard to imagine Kiki Smith’s life-size sculpture of a man performing autofellatio displayed in MoMA’s atrium, for example. Or Pawel Althamer’s live crucifixion reenactment at the Whitney. The sheer amount of transgressiveness, at least, brings a bracing real-life quality of grit and truthfulness to the show. It’s also in keeping with the museum’s stated aim, “to support new art … not yet familiar to mainstream audiences.” There’s plenty of work here that people outside the community of specialists and aficionados don’t often get to see. [Read more...]

Do We Deserve Moore?

Brian Sewell’s epic rant against Henry Moore provoked by the Tate show of the sculptor’s work looks for a villain to blame all this Moore upon. He finds it in Kenneth Clark:

The Establishment took him to its bosom. Kenneth Clark began that rot — the precocious Kenneth Clark who was the National Gallery’s worst director and is known to us all as the vain master of Civilisation — for it was he who appointed Moore an official war artist in 1941, and he who that very year displayed the Shelter Drawings that made Moore so widely popular during the Second World War. [Read more...]

Robert Hughes v. Alberto Mugrabi

It’s almost painful to watch the conversation between Alberto Mugrabi and Robert Hughes. Hughes’s bullying does his wit, learning and great skill as a writer no credit. There’s no particular reason that this clip comes back to light except that it reminds one of the great antipathy that exists toward the art market.

Update: We’ve already had a response to the video remarking that it is Mugrabi’s inarticulate defense of Warhol and Prince that is most striking about the video. But that’s exactly the point of posting it. What we have here is a battle of wills between the critic and the market (personified by the private dealer, Alberto Mugrabi.) The signal feature of the last decade in the art world has been the erosion of critical authority and the rise of rapid market-determined artists. [Read more...]

The Collapse of Didacticism

Newsweek‘s Peter Plagens sees the retrenchment of this year’s Whitney Biennial away from identity politics, or any other sort of politics, as a very good thing:

Sometimes the art world actually lags behind society, and the bursting of its preachy-self-indulgence bubble follows rather than leads the collapse of the economy’s credit bubble by a couple of years. In the money world, anybody could borrow any amount for practically anything. In art, anyone could claim to be addressing any social issue with just about any work, and curators believed it. But just as credit on demand didn’t make the economy more sound, credibility on demand for message art didn’t make exhibitions such as the Whitney Biennial any better. The welcome upshot of this Biennial’s retrenchment could be that in galleries and museums, the audience gets treated to more art and less instruction. Except, perhaps, at the panel discussion.

But What Does It Mean? (Newsweek)

Defending Hirst

You’ve heard all the laughter and snark directed at Damien Hirst’s oil painting. But there’s at least one critic who isn’t part of the wolf pack hunting down the world’s richest artist. The Telegraph‘s Richard Dorment thinks there’s more to Hirst and the artist’s upcoming show may prove him right:

About a year ago I had lunch at Sotheby’s new dining rooms, which were then decorated with so many of Hirst’s deep blue butterfly and diamond pictures that you felt enveloped in them. And let me tell you, there wasn’t a more ravishing room in London. When I first heard about the Wallace show that’s what I thought we might get – a sure-fire crowd pleaser, wraparound butterflies and diamonds on a dark blue ground, framed in gold and hung against light blue silk. What was there not to like? And so I was as surprised as anybody when I first saw the images of painted skulls, shark’s jaws, ashtrays, and glasses. [Read more...]

A Deitch Conspiracy Theory a Day

Apologies for having overlooked this in a previous post on Christopher Knight’s Los Angeles Times story trying to unpack the meaning–and dangers–lurking within the appointment of Jeffrey Deitch as director of LA’s MoCA. For Knight, being an art dealer means admitting that you’re the spawn of Satan. Or so it would seem from these guesses about the board’s motives:

Virtually every planning move its new director makes will raise questions about its relationship to Deitch’s veiled commercial entanglements, which are long-standing and international in scope. For instance, one question already swirls: Is MOCA partly making a play for the blue-chip collection of Dakis Joannou, 69, the Greek construction magnate, hotelier and Coca-Cola franchiser? [Read more...]

LA MoCA Haven for Revolutionaries

Christopher Knight, the LA Times art critic, expresses a little contempt for the choice of Jeffrey Deitch as LA MoCA’s new director:

There is nothing wrong with a lively and robust art market, but Deitch’s commercial commitments are problematic for his new job. The problem is that the market represents a very narrow slice of a vast art-pie. Art commerce gets out-sized press because the public, although generally unfamiliar with and incurious about art, is familiar with and curious about money. In modern capitalism, art and popular culture intersect in the market. [Read more...]

Art Critics and Economics

Ben Lewis is a foe of the art market. He’s been on a one-man campaign to deflate the art bubble. So you’d think he might have taken a victory lap this last year as art prices collapsed and sales ceased for a time. Instead, he displays a muddled understanding of basic economics in a story on the Royal Bank of Scotland’s £10m art collection. Lewis is quoted as calling for a distressed sale of the bank’s art:

Ben Lewis, an art commentator, said: “All the banks who received state aid should have firesales of their art collections. In fact, governments should enforce these sales. That would take some of the heat out of the inflated art market, and put a bit more money back into government balance sheets.” [Read more...]

An Era Explained

Christopher Knight is never a critic to hold back his opinion. Here he wraps up the decade with a little economic history for the Los Angeles Times:

Something else also happened a generation ago that tossed-and-turned the cultural life of the Aughts in ways we have yet to sort out. Reaganomics, the trickle-down fairy tale that says economic growth is most effectively created by dismantling corporate regulation and slashing top tax-brackets, began a massive, upward redistribution of wealth. It went into hyper-drive in the new millennium. The once-secure American middle class got shredded, while the richest got the gated precincts of a new Gilded Age.

The last time that happened, late in the 19th century, extravagant displays of New World wealth included amassing great collections of Old World art and artifacts. Now, with most of that art long-since spoken for (and transferred into museums), the super-rich angle for what’s left: Modern and, since those gems are mostly gone, contemporary art. [Read more...]