Donald Caspian. The value of art or the value of money

[gans]

From now on, there are no trends in art - now it is the flow of the market
                                                                                   - Walter Robinson

As an 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 satisfy the most demanding tastes, "he said about one of them is especially interesting (but only for adults): removing money! Anatomy, become fascinating! Monetary authorities! Nothing is hidden from your eyes ! Informative and ensures the wealth! "

Читать дальше... 

I will put forward the assumption that an absurd abundance of reigning in the modern art market is not a direct consequence of the diversity of his (art) forms, as a consequence of the above-mentioned "raising money", and thus commercially successful work of art becomes a kind of monkey organ grinder (in the role of the organ grinder of course all the same money). Money exist solely to increase the value and sustainability of money - the power of money to generate money reproduce itself - that has no relation to the value and sustainability of art.

It is assumed that money itself has no value - valuable is that to which they can be traded, but it seems to me that the growth in demand for works of art is a kind of parthenogenetic method of money to declare their self-worth. Moreover, we are talking about the value of absolute purity, the quintessence of the values in a capitalist society.

Many years ago, Meyer Shapiro talked about the difference between the spiritual value of art and its commercial value, warning of the danger of destruction of this barrier. It looks like, today, both in the public opinion, so, perhaps, in the subconscious of many masters is no difference between these concepts do not exist. The commercial value of art arose over the spiritual value and, moreover, began to define it. Were characteristic of the aesthetic, cognitive, emotional and moral values - the values that art has the effect of dialectical variety of critical consciousness - were replaced by the value of money.

Art has never been, regardless of money, but now it is subordinate to the money - the money all-pervading consciousness. It is filled with art - in fact everything in a capitalist society - as well as the Absolute Spirit of Hegel. Money is always invested in art only as an expression of admiration, recognition of art as something standing above the cash value - the true treasures of civilization - but today's excessive investment of money in the art, are thus an attempt to surpass the art itself, invalidate his point to the fact that money takes precedence over art.
Desire, and even the zeal of art to be absorbed with money - as if to estetizirovat money - suggests that art, like any other business enterprise, both cultural and technological (culture, however, in many cases was only a supplement a method for technological practice) is the only way to make money, their cult - a kind way of recognizing capitalism. Moreover, it 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, due to continually ongoing race for the money.

Capitalism is moving in the direction in which communism had failed, but also brings people, albeit in a different way, as the opening of the auction houses in the former communist countries that are in essence a bridgehead of capitalism, just as the priest who accompanied the conquistadors were kind of commando Christianity.

If the list of auctions ARTNeT in 2006. (see "Art Market Watch", dek.21, 2006), is a kind of proof, then it implies that the old methods of drawing remains the most successful way to earn money - this suggests that the picture on many assumptions, which is already pochivshim or which by itself mourning art form, still remains commercially viable.

Even more interesting, the importance of money made by the distinguished previously esteem avant-garde art - the art, once so contemptuous of capitalist society.

Nowadays, art is no longer legitimize 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, we can assume that for earning money and the arts lies one and the same motivation. In fact, they installed a new hierarchy of values: the money began to be valued above art.

Money no longer serve and support art, art serves and supports the money. When the money go down to the arts and give him his blessing, as Jupiter showered with money Danae, art as a sign 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 eternal and transcendental, and anyone - artist or not - throws his passbook, seems engaged in self-destruction of a fool.

Since then, when they were written these words, one could observe a slow but sure advance of money on the position of art. Rising prices at the auction confirms that the capitalization of art is complete. Money completely subjugated the art, even more - art became a kind of money.

Collectors and dealers look conquistadors, buying market for a particular art to squeeze out the last vestiges of 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 the artistic gold for its radiance of the sun god, symbolizing his life-giving force. It was a spiritual light, proving that art is sacred and is the subject of basic necessities for living sentient beings. Art of the spirit embodied in material form and content of art was a means to achieve spiritual goals. What would be a crude form of art is not taken, internally it has always been excellent. Dürer understood it, mourning the loss of melted gold in pre-Columbian works of art - at the trial of this case in the Imperial court, he was made a witness in the then Spanish Netherlands.

Only art that brings the money gets into textbooks, which are now often appear ably edited by the auction results. The official history of art should always be a market leader, consciously or unconsciously. The triumph of money over art - is the ultimate triumph of the pure spirit of capitalism, the man who describes Marx in the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Although Schumpeter's idea that capitalism is "creative destruction" and is a perfectly reasonable objection to Marx, this question of art, is that capitalism has a destructive and limiting the effect on creative freedom, or is her motivation - can the desire to create profitable art create spiritually valuable item. Is the convergence of money and art useful or harmful to the artist, how would this not indicative of the health of the capitalist system?

I will return to the question of the overall spiritual impact that capitalism has, through the art of seizing the money, but now I would like to draw attention to the irrefutable facts - the price of the art in 2006 and their impact on the perception and evaluation of art. I will offer his version of a vision of how we should understand the value and importance conferred on works of art - and, more broadly, the artists who create them - a sum paid for them.

Spending a certain amount of money on a piece of art can be compared with the rate in the casino. In fact, the risk is even smaller, because the more money invested in the work of art, the greater the chance he has to win the overall game art. Big money will always pay off - both in historical significance to works of art, and in the economic welfare of the depositor. This method of controlling the game. Method conjure wheel of fortune, that it has always been located in someone's favor. And it stops only at the largest.

Figures of such players as the art dealer Jeffrey Deytch and collectors Donald and Mera Rubels confirm the fact that they took up a lot of money on art. Deytch and Rubels never lose nothing, while the art critics are educated losers (this profession is clearly declined since Greenberg and Ruskin). That money's nouveau riche, not the original critical elite, are now a fact that finds new meaning in the old art and old value in the new, with his twisted artistic intuition.

What is said about de Kooning 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 the picture is full of meaning? And what sense? And the fact that Geffen also sold a Jackson Pollock painting «№ 5 (1948) for $ 140,000,000, he said that Pollock was less significant for the arts - whatever that meant - the de Kooning, whose work is $ 500,000 more expensive?

Much importance de Kooning also confirmed by the fact that Geffen had sold his work «Police Gazette» (1955) for $ 63,500,000. Manipulated whether Geffen values or simply trying to earn as much money? Or subconsciously wants to show that Geffen and Cohen are more significant than de Kooning and Pollock, as they have plenty of money?

Players, therefore, become more important than the artists whose works are played, as the former have the money, which is not the artists. In the eyes of modern society huge sums held by Geffen and Cohen, attach pictures of de Kooning and Pollock elevated values and the absolute value, which they did not have under other circumstances.

The inherent value of these paintings, whatever they were - and that certainly can be interpreted in different ways - will never make them more significant than their market value, the equivalent in cash. More radically, once perceived in terms of money, they can no longer be perceived as having artistic value. In the history of them can no longer be issues - critical consciousness, or should the money, either on their own order of stops. Assumptions for this account is no longer considered - hitting once in the economic paradise, the product is doomed regarded as absolutely significant. Arguments who question such a situation, have gone unheeded, and eventually voice objected to be marginalized. I say that the price of art has become absolute, and the last of its value, even if the value implied by the cost of the work, it seems doubtful - the price itself is the only explanation.


Thus, the low price means a short-term investment, high mean long-term investment, and finally an "invaluable" work of art confers immortality - his supposedly higher value for money, despite the fact that his immortality lies in the huge amounts of it may be exchanged. High prices should mean a good reputation, but, apparently, they made it. Amounts paid for the work of de Kooning and Pollock, say that these artists are involved in running 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 can see that it is money attached to these figures the status of major artists, along with Leonardo and Michelangelo - no one dares to question their greatness and their importance for the arts - as opposed to smaller, such as, for example, Bouguer and Meissonier, of particular interest only to historians. No criticism of the historian would venture to suggest that de Kooning and Pollock will someday be regarded as the Bouguer and Meissonier today is worth only their abstract expressionism to be identified unauthentic and small - the same must be said to have happened with the Bouguer and Meissonier, when they were replaced by Cubism and Fauvism, be more meaningful and relevant. Theoretically unfashionable, they lost favor with critics and cultural community and become nothing more than curious anachronisms.

Thus, the art is moving to new territories, previously considered from an artistic point of view as unfit for habitation, leaving behind the old colonies, naive and quaint, no longer carry the "truth" of art. But for many of the recognized art lovers spent such territory, such as Michelangelo and Leonardo look rather bastions of artistic truth among the hordes of barbarians.

Donald Caspian. The value of art or the value of money. Part 2

[color="# 666686"]Added after 4 minutes[/color]
According to the lists Artnet `a, the most popular works in the market auctions in October and November 2006, then established new sales records and forming a hierarchy of values and importance were:

             (1) Gustav Klimt, Adele Bloch-Bauer II, $ 87,936,00;
              (2) Paul Gauguin, L'homme a la hache, $ 40,336,000;
              (3) Ernst Kirchner, Berliner Strassenszene, $ 38,096,000;
              (4) Willem de Kooning, Untitled XXV, $ 27,120,000;
              (5) Edward Hopper, Hotel Window, $ 26,896,000;
              (6) Egon Schiele, Einzelne Häuser - Häuser mit Bergen, $ 22,416,000;
              (7), Clifford Still, 1947-R-no. 1, $ 21,296,000;
              (8) Andy Warhol, Mao, $ 17,276,000;
              (9) Norman Rockwell, Breaking Home Ties, $ 15,416,000;
             (10), Francis Bacon, Version No. 2 of Lying Figure, $ 15,416,000.

Читать дальше... 

Is this list a few things worthy of attention, each in its own way reflects the ability to create value for money, or at least set the artistic value. If we relate the price paid for the painting, the aesthetic aspect of her perception, thus creating new horizons of perception of paintings and interest in it, we can say that the price is including the way of creating a critical value. The only question is what kind of this critical value.

This list reflects both a critical and social value, while the social value can be reduced to the value of national, which is implicitly understood to be fundamental. In other words, the price represents the political war, ongoing economic weapon. Price points to a biased national elections, and on this basis, perhaps, is valued national art.

For example, an Austrian artist who occupies the first place, had had a weaker reputations than the French artist, who now occupies the second place - as, indeed, the whole modern Austrian art once regarded, and continues today on many items regarded as less significant than the contemporary French art. However, due to their unprecedented commercial success (for the work of Klimt had been paid for more than two times higher than in Gauguin), he attained great fame, and, moreover, gained fame as the undisputed greatness. Henceforth, he counted among the pantheon of great art. With the help of money has been made processing of critical values and, consequently, opened new account in the old war between the Austro-Germanic and the French national treasure.

Similarly, the higher position of the famous German expressionist in relation to American abstract expressionists - De Kooning is second only to Pollock among the abstract expressionists - indicates that the New York School, despite its importance and originality, yet not so important and original, as a group, "Bridge".
Again, the canon created by the curators of American art, has changed - the American generation of French art, apparently tired of the honor of the place of honor, let it to his German opponent. The economic superiority over Schiele Still, although quite insignificant - one million dollars - said the same thing. Again, an Austrian outsider "means" more than an artist-countryman.

Again we can observe the shift in the hierarchy of the canonical styles and values, which suggests that it makes the market determining the critical judgments. However, these judgments are based on socio-economic race between the powers. France was defeated by Germany - the United States liberated it - but now Germany economically more successful than France and, moreover, is a reliable ally of the United States. Presumably, this is why Germany and Austria - a country in the sphere of influence of Germany - reach higher prices on the art market than France and America. Germany and Austria are no longer rogue states, unlike the United States who have earned a reputation as such, due to the war in Iraq, and due to its not credible (if not more) diplomacy in general, characteristic of the current government.

Prices for art can not reflect in a socio-political realities, as well as artistic value is always in some way related to them. It is not that the nationality of the artist is the main factor determining the price of his work, but for the money it is subconscious or not, but often plays a decisive role. One can also say that, despite all the alleged transnationality art, national styles still exist, and national values play a role in the formation of prices in the market. In a sense, money, even based on nationality - watched indicator of well-being of the country, noting cases where the art brings its share of total national pot, especially in cases when a country becomes the object of attention for tourists involved in its culture, and the artist becomes a national treasure - in order to earn a "theoretical" trust. Under capitalism, however, the money are both theory and practice. They are self-sufficient in themselves: all that should make money - is to assert its credibility.

The most disappointing that part of the list, which shows almost absolute equality between the commercial Warhol, Rockwell and Bacon. She points us to blur the boundaries between popular and high art to commercial, which is in the works of these artists takes place almost simultaneously. This becomes evident when you look at their iconographic sources for their supposed audience, and even work with a brush, which is not too rich in nuance - even simplified - in terms of high art.
Most confusing economically stable position Hopper, due to all projected to leave the market as early as 40 th, when Pollock had achieved fame. Return to social realism? Or, Hopper entered the pantheon of modern artists, in spite of its wholly American social realism? The answer is unclear, but with the achievement of economic prosperity Hopper undoubtedly enhanced the prestige of the artist.

The remaining positions in the list confirms the importance, if not the absolute priority - even though other priorities are not always clear - the nationality of the artist in determining the value of his work. It would be "Slave and Lion" Xu Beyhonga, which occupies 12 th place, sold for $ 6,925,450 anywhere else, except for Hong Kong? The same can be said about the work of Chen Chengbo Dansui, also sold in Hong Kong for $ 4,478,149, and thus falls on the 16 th position. Ahead of it in one position painting by Konstantin Somov «Pastorale russe» was sold for $ 5,184,615 at auction "Important Russia's paintings in London.

Painting Lucio Fontana «Concetto spaziale, attese» was sold for $ 4,030,189 and took 19 th place. Would be its price is as great if the picture is not positioned as part of the Italian market sales, but as part of the global market of contemporary art? In my opinion, exactly what the painting is Italian, gives it economic value, of which she could not prove whether she would have another product of the so-called advanced or experimental art. Significance of Italy here confirms the importance of Fontana, but not otherwise. The buyer invests in Italy, no more and no less than in the fountain. In the end, he was born in a country which is home to many great works of art, so it should be a great artist, or at least, deserves attention economically.

In Madrid, painting by HA Camarasa «El Casino de Paris» was sold for $ 3,701,266, which enabled her to occupy an honored 22-th place. If this work had been sold outside of Spain, it probably took place would be much lower than this. There is no escape, and the facts, confirming that it was the sense of national dignity is responsible for a high price - $ 1,600,000 - paid by November 2006 for a painting by Norman Rockwell «Lincoln the Railsplitter» (1965). According to «The Financial Times» (Feb. 17. 2007), the picture was purchased from the Ross Perrotet Institute of American Art. Butler, which indicates that the price of its more attributable to its purely American character than to its direct artistic qualities.

Some facts gleaned from the list are able to amuse. For example, the paintings of Carl Andre «Aluminum Steel Plain» and NS Wyeth (NCWyeth) «Stand and Deliver» occupy 36 th place (listed in alphabetical order as 36 and 37), for $ 2,032,000 each, which seemed to hint that minimalism and illustration are one price - a statement in which it is difficult that any objection.
Likewise, paintings by Henri-Eugène Le Sidane (Henri Eugène Le Sidaner) «La table aux Lanternes, Gerberoy», Anselm Kiefer (Anselm Kiefer) «Balder's Triume», and Grandma Moses (Grandma Moses) «Sugaring Off» together occupy 52 Runners-up (listed as 52, 53 and 54), for a cost of $ 1,360,000. This raises an interesting critical, as well as commercial and the question: why the work of an unknown French Impressionists, the famous German neo-expressionist and the work of the famous American folk artist sold at one price? Are they all the same in its artistic value?

Moses was an amateur artist, Kiefer - an artist with already established career, graduating at the Dusseldorf Academy and a former star pupil of Joseph there Basie. Does this mean that the diploma and not essential for a successful career of the artist? Does this mean that the old lady from the countryside can make yourself just as much an art career? Do I need to bother with theory, to become an important artist? Interesting questions about creativity in general and art in particular, themselves arise from a commercial equality Kiefer and Moses. And Le Sidane, implying that the followers may have no less significance than those for whom they follow.

Continue along the same lines can be long - list of Artnet `a, numbering 401 position offers a lot of questions evoked by the same prices. The last picture in the list is "Untitled" Tetsuya Ishida (Tetsuya Ishida), sold for $ 100.257 in the auction of Asian contemporary art in Hong Kong. He is one of 27 Asian artists in the list, which indicates that the art of Asia is consistent with the commercial spirit of the era, as well as the fact that ethnicity plays an important role - it is clear that Asia and China in particular, are a significant economic force in the world of art.

The development of prices on the art market rather may be associated with the development of individual nations than with the development of artistic values (whose development in general is at issue). Nationality of the artist more important economically than with the artistic point of view. In other words, the degree of confidence to a certain artist depends on the degree of confidence in his country.

In my opinion, since the popularity of political and economic forces of the United States are declining, while China on these indicators is gaining strength - Shanghai as a commercial center not only surpasses New York, but London and Frankfurt - a product of American Art will lose its economic and artistic value, while the economic and artistic value of Chinese art will continue to grow, except in special cases in the interests of the market will involve the establishment. The market operates in the long run only if there is its growth, not stagnation. Painting Zhang Xiaogang «Tiananmen Square», sold for $ 2,318,766 and occupies the 33rd place, and the picture of Eric Fischl "father's daughter", sold for $ 1,920,00, quite eloquently illustrate this.

Therefore, it becomes clear that the nationality of the artist's influence on the price of his works. Price represents a kind of barometer of the economic state of the nation, its present and potential prosperity. Presumably, the price also indicates the degree of freedom of the national market. The more free market, the higher the price of works of art, which confirms the fact that the art market - the free market. This character of the market consistent with the chaotic properties of the contemporary art world.

The famous words of Marshal Mac-Lüen reads as follows: "Art is something with which you can run. Today's art - is the price at which you can withdraw from the bidding. This confirms the testimony of Ella Fontantels-Tsisneros, founder of the Central Museum of Art in Miami, that "if young artists had their work assessed at $ 2,000, but now they start at $ 10,000-20,000.

Thus, art has become a field demonstration of money. Fontanels-Tsisneros both spoke of the past in this year's exhibition New York: "They are sponsored by all of the manufacturers Altoids breath fresheners to the owner of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel or the law firm Clifford Chance." One can assume that the sponsorship by such brand names advertised and makes the brand new art, and so it can receive the requested amount.

Obviously, the art - it is good advertising and good business, as indicated, and Nicholas Serota, director of the Tate Gallery, saying that "seven out of ten basic things that attract tourists - a publicly funded museums, and the total turnover of money only in museums and libraries of 2 million pounds a year. " Besides, "cponsirovanie Council for the Arts in 1996 increased by 70 percent," which in 2002 led to the export of "artistic goods worth $ 8,5 billion, which represents more value than China or America." Investment in art is extremely well compensated, exemplified by the fact that Serota today - a successful businessman, for which no doubt he was promoted to the Lords.

I would stress that let them compare the prices of works of art and raises the question of comparison of their artistic value, but the market itself will not give it any rational explanation. Moreover, irrespective of national differences, the market will not accept critical discussions about the differences in artistic properties, even in cases when he pointed right at them. Most reasons for the existence of money is enough to justify the existence of any art and ensure its critical resonance.
In other words, money - this is the only meaning and raison d'etre, which ultimately requires art. We can say that the value of money has nothing to do with artistic values. However, the price of art rather than deny the past, as implied a lack of need for some sort of independent evaluation of art in general. Any independent look at the art of loses sight of the existence of the capitalist point of view, which in a sense was a specific form of justice - estetizirovannoy justice, but above all justice.

The significance of art to date is that it makes money. It is unclear whether the money creating art, but just can say that they "sponsor" art. The value of art is guaranteed money, that does not mean that without money the art of loses its significance, but the value of money dominates artistic value, and although originally intended to be a recognition of the latter. And the art and the criticism turned out to be money losers, even though the money and bring in an element of art critics, confirming it as art. Moreover, money has become more existentially significant than the art.

I am even prepared to defend the view that the money just trying to fill the void of the existential meaning, which formed the art of losing its spiritual destiny. In other words, investors, speculators, buying works of art as a tangible investment, and not for their spiritual value, thus denying it, showing his spiritual poverty and existential dullness. They are like locusts, nicknamed as investors in hedge funds, making hostile offers for companies Manterfering Franz, former chairman of the German Social Democratic Party. "Locust ... which swooped down on the field, leaving it bare earth and flies to another field. "[...]

I believe that the money entered the sacred river of art and polluted it, despite attempts to buy off their sins, paying the 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.

[AlexanderG]

Zamechatel'no! Osobenno chast 'ob intseste.