Sacred river of art and money (Donald Caspian Sea, art critic)

[NATA NOVA]

It is quite fascinating article, which formulated many answers to questions about the values ​​of art:
Quote:
  "The importance of art to date is that it makes money. It is not clear whether the money creating art, but just to say that they" patronize "the arts. The value of art is guaranteed money, that does not mean that no money will lose its value art, but the value of money dominates the artistic value, although originally intended to be a recognition of the latter. And art criticism and were defeated by money, although money and bring in an element of art criticism, confirming it as art. Moreover , money has become more existentially significant than the art.

I am even ready to defend the view that money is only seeking to fill the void of the existential meaning, which formed the art, having lost its spiritual destiny. In other words, investors, speculators, buying works of art as a tangible investment, and not for their spiritual value, thus denying her, showing his spiritual poverty and existential torpor. They may be compared with locusts, nicknamed as investors in hedge funds, making hostile offers, Franz Manterfering, former chairman of the German Social Democratic Party. "Locusts, ... which hits the field, leaving it bare ground and fly to another field. "[...]

I believe that money have invaded the sacred river and polluted the art of it, despite attempts to buy off their sins payment of money to artists. But apparently, the relationship between money and art still ended incest, suggesting that the properties of their future offspring, which has already manifested itself in the form of anti-artists. "


Donald Caspian Sea, art critic, art historian (the last three paragraphs of his article "The Value of Art or the value of money")
-----------------------
The whole article:
 Part One:
http://russianartguide.ru/business/12.php

Chasit Two:
http://russianartguide.ru/business/13.php

In the original:
http://agorasmenos.wordpress.com/201...-money-values/

[NATA NOVA]

Part One (more readable version of the paragraph and underline):

By way of introduction, I would like to quote lines from the tenth and last Duino Elegy by Rainer Maria Rilke. Describing the bazaar shops - let's call them the art market - "which can meet the most demanding tastes," he says about one of them

 "Is particularly interesting (but only for adults): elimination of money! Anatomy, which has become fun! Monetary authorities! Nothing is hidden from your eyes! Cognitive and ensures the wealth!"

 I put forward the hypothesis that the abundance of the absurd, prevailing in today's art market is not a direct consequence of its diversity (arts) forms, as a consequence of the aforementioned "dilution of money," and thus commercially successful works of art become something like a monkey organ grinder (in the role organ-grinder of course all the same money).

Money exist solely to maximize the value and sustainability of money - the power of money generate money reproduce itself - which has no relation to the value and sustainability of art.
 It is assumed that money alone will have no value - valuable is something that can be exchanged, but it seems to me that the growth in demand for works of art is a kind of parthenogenetic way of money to declare their self-worth. Moreover, we are talking about value of the absolute purity of the, quintessence of value in capitalist society.

Many years ago, Meyer Schapiro talked about the difference between the spiritual value of art and its commercial value, warning about the danger of destruction of this barrier. Apparently, today as part of public opinion, as probably and subconscious of many masters is no difference between these concepts do not exist. commercial value of art arose over the spiritual value and, moreover, was to define it. Inherent art aesthetic, cognitive, emotional and moral values ​​- are the values ​​that art has the effect of dialectical variety of critical consciousness - have been replaced by the value of money.The art has never been independent of money, but now it is subordinate to the money - all-pervading consciousness of money.

Читать дальше... 

It fills the arts - in fact everything in a capitalist society - as well as the Absolute Spirit of Hegel. Money is always invested in art only as expressions of admiration to them, the recognition of art as something standing above the cash value - the true treasures of civilization - but today's excessive investment of money in art, is an attempt to beat so the art itself, depreciate it indicate that money takes precedence over art. desire, and even eagerness to be absorbed by art money - as if to aestheticize money - suggest, that Art, like any other company, both cultural and technological (culture, however, in many cases was only supplement or using for technological practice) is just a way to make money, their cult - a kind of way acceptance of capitalism. Moreover, this is a sign of the triumph of capitalism over socialism, which means the loss of human wealth, which may well be achieved by reallocating capital, by continually ongoing race for the money.

Capitalism is moving in the direction in which communism had failed, but also brings a person, though in his own way, as the opening of the auction houses in ex-communist countries, which are essentially a base of capitalism, as well as the priests accompanying the conquistadors were original landing of Christianity.

 If the list of auctions on ARTNeT 2006. (See "Art Market Watch", dek.21, 2006), is a kind of proof, then it implies that the old methods of drawing are still the most successful way to make money - that allows suggest that the picture on the assumptions of many, who are already deceased or wearing on itself mourning art form, still remain commercially viable. What's even more interesting, the importance of money did not previously distinguished enjoyed the honor vanguard art - art that was once so contempt for capitalist society. Nowadays, art is no longer legitimizes power embodied in money, but on the contrary, money legitimize the art, making it the capitalist ownership.

Inevitably comes to mind Andy Warhol's prophetic idea of ​​the entrepreneurial art, that art has become a business, as well as earning money in business is an art. Thus, one can suppose that for making money and the arts lies one and the same motivation. In fact, they installed a new hierarchy of values: money began to be valued higher than art. Money no longer serve or support the arts, art serves and supports the money.
When the money go down to the arts and give him his grace, showered with money as Jupiter Danae, the art of gratitude spreads his legs.

Gone are the days when Mark Rothko said that "the artist can throw out their plastic passbook" (1947), as well as the days when art seemed to be speaking his own language, "eternal" and "transcendental." Money is eternal and transcendental, and anyone - artist or not - throws his passbook, is engaged in self-destruction of a fool. Since then, when these words were written, one could observe a slow but steady advance of money on the position of art. The rise in prices at auctions confirms that the capitalization of completed art. Money completely subdued art, even more than that - art has become a kind of money.

Collectors and dealers look conquistadors, buying up the market a certain art to squeeze out the last remnants of his money. Hunters for gold in the art of looking for the Holy Grail, and they do not reflect on its significance for the natives, who appreciate art for its gold radiance of the sun god, symbolizing his life-giving power. It was a spiritual light, confirming that art is sacred and is a necessity for living sentient beings. Art embodied the spirit in material form and material of art was a means to achieve spiritual goals. What would a rough form art takes, internally it has always been excellent. Dürer knew it, mourning the loss of pre-Columbian gold melted into works of art - in the process of this case at the Imperial court, he made a witness in the then Spanish Netherlands.

Only art that brings the money goes into the textbooks, which are now often look skillfully edited the results of auctions . The official history of art should always be a market leader, consciously or unconsciously.triumph of money over art - is the ultimate triumph of the pure spirit of capitalism, the very same which describes Marx in The Communist Manifesto. Although the idea of ​​capitalism, Schumpeter as "creative destruction" and is a perfectly reasonable objection to Marx, today the issue of art, is whether capitalism has a destructive and limiting effect on creative freedom, or is her motivation - the desire to create a capable profitable art create spiritually valuable item. Is the convergence of money and art useful or harmful to the artist, how would this not evidence of the health of the capitalist system?

 I will return to the question of the general spiritual influence which had capitalism, capturing art through money, but now I would like to draw attention to the hard facts - the price of art in 2006 and their impact on the perception and evaluation of art.
 I will offer his version of a vision of how to understand the value and importance, which are endowed with works of art - and, more broadly, the artists who create them - after they paid for the amount.

Waste some money on a piece of art can be compared with the rate in the casino. In fact, the risk is even less because the more money invested in a work of art, the more chance he has of winning the overall game art. Big money always pays off - both for the historical significance of works of art, and in the economic welfare of the investor. This is a way to control the game. Way to conjure the wheel of fortune, that it always has been located in someone's favor. And it stops only at the highest.

The figures of such players as art dealer Jeffrey Deytch and collectors Donald and Mera Rubels confirm the fact that a lot of money taken up on art. Deytch Rubels and never lose nothing, while the art critics are educated misfits (obviously, this profession has declined since Greenberg and Ruskin). That's money nouveaux, rather than an original critical elite, are now in that finds new meaning in the old art and old value in the new, with his perverted artistic intuition.

 Indicating that de Kooning was the fact that his "Woman III» (1952-53) was sold to a Hollywood mogul David Geffenom owner of hedge fund billionaire Steven A. Cohen for $ 142,500,000? Does the fact that a rich person sold it to another rich person, that picture is full of meaning? And what sense? And the fact that Teff also sold a picture of Pollock «№ 5" (1948) for $ 140,000,000, whether he spoke about the fact that Pollock is less significant for the arts - whatever that meant - the de Kooning, whose work stands at $ 500,000 is more expensive? Most of the significance of de Kooning also supported by the fact that Teff and sold his work «Police Gazette» (1955) for $ 63,500,000.

Manipulated whether Teff values ​​or just trying to earn more money? Or subconsciously wants to show that Teff and Cohen are more significant than de Kooning and Pollock, as they have a lot of money? Players who have thus become more important than the artists whose works are played, because the former have the money, which is not the artists. In the eyes of modern society huge amounts held by Teff and Cohen, attach pictures of de Kooning and Pollock elevated value and absolute value, which they did not have under other circumstances.

 pictures of this inherent value, whatever they may be - and that can certainly be interpreted in different ways - you never make them more significant than their market value, their money's worth. In more radical, once perceived in terms of money, they can no longer be perceived as having artistic value. The story for them can no longer be issues - critical consciousness or should there be money, or at the same order of stops.

Speculation on this point is no longer considered - hitting once in the economic paradise, the product is doomed to be regarded as definitely significant. arguments questioning this situation, are not heard, and eventually voice objecting marginalized. I'm talking about that price is an absolute work of art and its last value,, even if the value implied by the cost of the work, it seems doubtful - the price itself is the only explanation.

Thus, low price means a short-term investment, high mean long-term investment, and in the end, "priceless" work of art bestows immortality - his supposedly higher value of money, despite the fact that his immortality lies in the very vast the amount by which it can be exchanged.

High prices should mean a good reputation, but, apparently, they create it. The amounts paid for the work of de Kooning and Pollock, suggests that these artists are participating in the race for a long distance race in the arts and does not intend to get lost in the recesses of history. In the most detailed analysis - and even without any analysis - we see that just give money to these figures the status of major artists, along with Leonardo and Michelangelo - no one dares to question their greatness, their value for the arts - as opposed to smaller, such as, for example, Bouguereau and Meson, of particular interest only to historians.
 None of critically minded historian would not risk to assume that de Kooning and Pollock will someday be regarded as Bouguereau and Meson today is worth only their abstract expressionism to be marked and a slight inauthenticity - the same thing, I must say, it was with Bouguereau Meson and, when they were replaced by Cubism and Fauvism, was more meaningful and relevant.

Theoretically unfashionable, they lost favor with critics and cultural community and have become nothing more than a curious anachronism. Thus, the art is moving to new areas, previously considered an artistic point of view as unfit for habitation, leaving the old colony, naive and quaint, no longer carry a "true" art.

But for many of the recognized art lovers such waste area, like Michelangelo and Leonardo look more artistic bastions of truth among the hordes of barbarians.