The Continuing Crisis In Contemporary Art

Across the spectrum of artists, gallerists, curators, and arts administrators, there are few issues as divisive as that of art auctions for non-profits. It seems innocuous enough, right? Art auctions are a popular way to generate funds and public awareness for non-profit arts organizations. For many of those organizations, an auction may in fact be the primary driver for annual funding.

In addition to the non-profits, art auctions can be beneficial to multiple parties in a number of ways:

Budding collectors benefit by building their young collections.
Artists get exposure.
Galleries representing participating artists have an opportunity for exposure.

But, Some Say There’s a Rub . . .

Detractors however claim that these events have a number of negative unintended effects:

Art auctions drive prices down, hurting both artists and galleries.
Collectors get “inferior” work, because contributions may be of lesser value.
Galleries suffer, because buyers may choose to do their buying at auctions.

Then, there’s the argument that prices paid at art auctions reflect the “real” market prices. I’m no economist. But, let’s think about this a moment: Getting any base of buyers together to bid on a pool of desired goods is one of the purest ways to determine the real value of those goods. Think eBay. Or, a stock market (without a Plunge Protection Team).

The biggest negative I see is when the highest bidders don’t properly pack their booty and, after a few pinots, cram it into the back of a smart car.

Lopping Off an Olive Branch

Donations to non-profits or charity have the most impact when they involve sacrifice of resources, whether time or money. For many of us, donations have come to be identified as the used items we pack up for Goodwill.

It all calls to mind the gently used underwear donations that were actually made famous by talk show hosts some years ago. True, some artists use art auctions as opportunities to get rid of works (and maybe underthings) that clutter the studio. But, any discerning buyer or collector should be able to spot this. Otherwise, if a budding collector likes the work, and it hasn’t sold after ample opportunity, so what?

Still, there’s a better solution – or several of them in fact – for all parties.

Experiences

In the least criticized category, some organizations auction off experiences with artists, curators, and other community members. These often involve alcohol, some art, and they might happen in another city. If non-profits are seeing the “quality” of donated work decline, this might be the best option of all. Clearly, there are gains in promotion and visibility for all parties.

Exclusive Artwork

If works are specifically created for an art auction, such as a piece that will not be part of a larger series, nobody really gets hurt. The collector gets a unique piece. The artist and her gallerist both get exposure.

Studies

Or, the work might be speculative in nature, exploring new creative paths or mediums, such as a study for future work.

In the interests of both full disclosure and promotion, the works that I’ve donated in full for the ART PAPERS Art Auction have been completed around the time of donation, and they are in response to current trends. In these cases, the works have been an exploration of potential future directions I might take. I don’t have to necessarily consider them to be a critical component of a larger group or series. The opportunity to donate helps me work through an idea, or it becomes a good excuse to see an envisioned object come to life.

A smart car at art auctions? Think again.

Statements here should not be read as a demonization of the smart car. But if you’re headed for an art auction, bring some bubble wrap for that booty.

Some organizations may even dictate a requirement that donated works be event-specific or in some other way exclusive. For artists at any career stage as well as their gallerists, how does anyone get hurt?

Still, one final requirement I suggest that might be helpful – if physical artworks are involved – would be that bidders bring something other than a smart car to the auction.

That and maybe a little bubble wrap.

Updated February 25, 2016.

They say the sun an-a shines for all,
But-a yin some people world, it never shine at all.
– Bob Marley

In most fields, money and technology are good things. For many in the art world, the one-two punch is staggering.

Ben Davis, in his post “The Crisis in Art and What It Means to Write About It”, wrote:

If you somehow took a poll of critics and writers about the state of contemporary art, “excited” wouldn’t be the first word you’d hear. Pretty much everyone agrees that things are dire. Money is drowning out everything.

To his credit, and if I can sum up the takeaways from the piece, he acknowledges that money and technology are making this an interesting time for interesting conversations.

Destabilizing Forces At Work

The reason critics and writers would not be excited about the contemporary art world right now is that money and technology are destabilizing a field that worked pretty well, for a while, for a small group of people.

Now, any asshole with a smartphone can share and comment on art (some would say review or even curate). To make matters worse, said asshole can actually create images (some would say art).*

To make matters even worser . . . It doesn’t even have to be a smartphone any more. It can be a mildly intelligent phone.

Money and technology caused the collapse of the telephone switchboard operator job market.

Creative Destruction

Speaking of phones, I’m reminded of the telephone operator crisis in the 1970s and 1980s. Never heard of it? If you were a telephone switchboard operator, those twin angels of death – money and technology – were at work then too.

In 1970, there were more than 420,000 switchboard operators. Within years, hundreds of thousands of them had lost their jobs. Meanwhile, more people were making more calls, more cheaply, and making them faster.

Interestingly, today, telephone switching technology isn’t thought of as a job killer.

The Specter of Decentralization

Ben sounds open to the changes we’re watching in the contemporary art world and looking at them honestly. After all, more money usually means more people interested. And, technology means more people getting more things done faster. You may not like all those things being produced, but lucky for guys like Ben, it means more stuff to write about.

Where it sucks for guys not like Ben, is that with a decentralization of influence underway, the power that was once in the hands of the few is in a whole lot of other hands. With mildly intelligent phones.

* The any asshole phrasing is significant for me personally. In a conversation with a DJ once, he told me angrily that “any asshole with a laptop is a DJ now.” He said this while his dual iPod beats were falling out of synch.

Updated February 25, 2016.

Posts From the Continuing Crisis in Contemporary Art Series . . .