sands of forced layoffs, financial analysts and art historical commentators are predicting the end of the market’s viability. However, despite the predictability of depleted funds, cultural institutions are struggling to come to terms with the "death of art." While the current issues facing the creative community are clear, the longterm impact of the financial crisis is uncertain. Many are claiming the complete dissolution of the market while others have pointed to a decline in artistic output. Recent trends, however, seem to suggest early signs of recovery. This week, in a testament to the industry's perseverance, I consider alternative perspectives on the state of art. In “Is Art Dead? Is This the End?”, David Eubanks discusses the current climate of the creative enterprise, suggesting the market will adapt to new realities rather than destruct entirely. Similarly, Laura Meli’s “Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009” investigates positive developments in the art community, namely focusing on New York's recent Armory Show. My responses to both of these posts are provided below and may be found at David Eubank’s On Art and the NY Art Beat Blog respectively."Is Art Dead? Is This the End?"
Comment:
Your post provides a unique and encouraging outlook on the art market's current state of affairs. The need to promote strong community support is vital in maintaining the industry's viability and profitability. However, while I agree that the future of the “Big Art Market” is under threat, designating value as “representational” or even “conceptual” seems a bit pre-emptive. Though certainly a valid point, the present devaluing of art is likely a temporary symptom of the financial crisis rather than a permanent development. Just last week, the Armory Show proved the perseverance of the market, attracting better than expected crowds and surprising sales. Declaring the so-called “Big Art Market” obsolete is thus premature. As your entry indicates, community interest is based on so-called “Real Market” values, superceding the momentary highs and lows of the stock exchange. However, your post ignores the “Real Market's” dependence on the “Big Art Market.” While visual culture provides educational value and holds community significance, artists rely on their patrons to survive - a group controlled by the “Big Art Market.” Thus, with both markets struggling, it is necessary to promote both community organizations and larger institutions. Focusing your entry entirely on co-ops and internet outlets undermines the importance publicly funded organizations play in the art world. With over 5.7 million workers and a financial impact of $166.2 billion, it is vital communities work to preserve struggling establishments on every level.
While I certainly agree increased support of community-based initiatives is necessary, expansion in the midst of a recession is, unfortunately, improbable. With the decline of private donations, the successful formation of new public agencies is simply implausible without government assistance. Your entry suggests the need to cater to patrons of the arts, yet you fail to consider that this financial base is diminishing. Without monetary support, how do you propose communities acquire the necessary start-up capital to form these organizations ? In solely discussing the economics of the industry, your post also does not take into account the impact the recession has had on artistic ouptut. As I am sure you believe, the power of art moves beyond pure economics. Thus, I am curious to hear your thoughts concerning the changing content of art. Recent articles suggest the need to develop new modes of representation and the demand to incorporate new subject matter to reflect current realities. An artist yourself, do you think the content of art will be impacted by the financial collapse? In looking at your assessment as well as similar posts from other authors, it seems that emerging trends have mistakenly been declared as finite changes in the art market. While these assessments may be limiting, I do, however, appreciate a more positive stance on an improving situation.
"Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009"
Comment:
In the current financial crisis, it is encouraging to read about a relatively positive development in the art world. Since many of the Armory Show's commentators have emphasized the diminished crowds and smaller sales, your initial focus on the galleries' prospective buyers and “heavily trafficked” aisles provides much need
ed assurance. It seems that despite the stress of the economic downturn, earnings were better than expected . Though the DOW plunged 7000 points last week, profits are projected to exceed 2008's total of $8.5 million in art sold. Organizers were undeterred by dismal projections, enhancing the “size and scope” of the exhibition this year, introducing a new section on modern art and expanding from 160 to 177 galleries (see left). In light of this, it seems particularly relevant to be discussing the Armory Show as it was initially created as a result of an economic downturn. In 1994, when the economy was similarly strained, several dealers came up with the idea as a means of more easily promoting multiple galleries and drawing increased media and community attention. The show's subsequent success led to an annual tradition, proving profitable even in our current crisis.As such, it seems your article simplifies the issue by focusing primarily on statistical data. Yes, the show made less than average sales, but you fail to consider that the show exceeded expectations. Several galleries were able to use the opportunity to advertise unsold works from previous exhibitions while others strategized by displaying less expensive works. Thus, despite the disappointing statistics, by all accounts, many are viewing the show as a sign of the market's continued viability. According to New York gallerists, sales have increased in the past few weeks, suggesting that confidence is returning among patrons. The show also provided increased exposure to individual artists - those suffering most from the financial collapse - and compensated for months of disappointing profits. At a time when emerging artists are struggling most, this is enough to declare the show a success. While I appreciate your decision to include both positive and negative results, your entry seems to take a relatively ambivalent and impersonal stance to the news. What do you believe the importance of the Armory Show to be? Do you think the show's relative success is symptomatic of a recovering market or is it simply a singular triumph in a still dire situation? Despite the "slow days" and lack of "6 figure sales, I would argue that the show has instilled much needed confidence in the art market and provided profits for both galleries and artists. With such a potentially significant impact, it seems disingenuous to reduce its significance to meaningless data.
First and foremost, I would like to thank you for commenting on such an interesting and relevant topic. With the recent trend in discussing the bleak economic situation, it is refreshing to see that your article focuses on a truly original and captivating issue. With your mention of the apparent “dissolution of the market” and “decline in artistic output”, I begin to wonder if the positives of such a situation could ultimately benefit the end user of the arts. In the architecture world, many professionals are struggling, however, there has also been an apparent shift to sustainability and low-income based buildings. The lack of development, earlier seen as a negative, will ultimately yield a higher quality and more responsible form of building. Could the art world see a similar transformation in trajectory in which the work can cater to a new, albeit, diminishing economy? Although I am not a seasoned art enthusiast, I do see that there could be a change of the target audience to more specialized markets such as the extremely wealthy, or inversely, the less fortunate. Additionally, in regards to the success of the Armory Show, is this the precedent set for the global art community in which smaller galleries begin to overlap into larger more diverse collections in order to decrease overhead and increase sales and publicity? Before I read this post, I was simply unaware of the correlation between the art community and the failing economy; however, I remain positive in that I believe the artists will take it as an opportunity to find new and innovative avenues for the production, showcasing, and selling of art. With the exception of very few typographical errors, your post is well-written and incredibly inspiring and I cannot wait to see what the artistic community brings to the table in the future.
ReplyDelete