Managed to nab free tickets to the Auckland Art Fair originally worth something like $45 so it was little wonder that at that price and on a Friday night, Ryan and myself were definitely among the youngest there. We were also definitely a little under dressed in our everyday uni garb, surrounded by people in full on suit and tie garb, drinking glasses of wine and eating cheese and crackers. When all the art works wore price tags of about $5k upwards it's perhaps not surprising.
As it was Friday night, I was at a very high risk of collapsing into an exhausted vegetable like state. The keynote lecture on 'The Curious Economies of Contemporary Art' by Don Thompson was however absolutely fantastic so managed to stay focused. Since studying art history and in particular the more modern end of things, I have been interesting in the debate of exactly what constitutes as art. As we move further into a modernist and then post modernist era, it is a conception challenged and pushed even further. It is an idea Thompson based his book $12 Million Stuffed Shark around when Damien Hurst's formaldehyde stuffed shark sold for $12 million and so used it as a starting point for discussion around the nature of exhibiting, selling, and collecting art.
I have decided that I don't have what it takes to be an art collector. It all seemed very elaborate in its complex politics and seems to miss the point of actually owning a work of art for the sake of aesthetic value. He discussed the difference between the value and the price of an artwork and like with any consumer product, the effect of branding. Where brands like Gucci are among the 'top of the line' or 'elite' status of branding in day to day consumer products, it is the same for auction houses and galleries as place of purchase, or who has owned it before you, as opposed to the work itself. It was in the pop era that artists began to play with the idea of an artwork being sought after because of the artist, where the artist was the consumer product which now seems to have shifted again.
This is undoubtedly is a comment on the context in which art is created. Pop art was born in a post war context in a boom of consumerism hence why art and the artist began to focus on this not just in subject matter but in how art was collected. Art is now “a competitive high-stakes game, fuelled by great amounts of money and ego”, it has now become a trophy of wealth, a status symbol. It seems an almost paradoxial response to a society in economic recession, where the idea of shelling out $12million and upwards for an artwork without a second thought is incredulous yet for the wealthiest is mere change. The art itself is bigger, bolder but that no longer seems to be the point.
Take again for example again, Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. It is a piece of conceptual art, where the value is in the idea as opposed to the physical artwork. When the first one started to rot and leak formaldehyde, Hirst simply replaced it to no detriment to it's value. Thompson did however argue that when you buy an artwork, you are buying all that comes with it, including it detrimentation over time. This got me thinking about the full wall frescoes in the chapels of Florence by iconic Renaissance artists - I am determined to see these before they are completely destroyed. Perhaps the effects of time and weather are what add to their iconic status, that they show all that time they have been around, physical embodiment and symbol of the context and society it was created in.
With any discussion around art, one can never seem to reach any solid conclusion but Thompson offered us one: if you buy a work of art, buy it because it speaks to you, because it means something to you. I agree with this and any art I'd possess with be that of some personal signifcance. I have on my wall at this moment a few sketches done by my friends, varying levels of complexity but all given to me which I have since had framed. Where I would consider exhibiting my works given the opportunity, I'd want people to engage with my art and want it because it means something to them.
In saying that, afterwards the lecture I managed to find the strength and enthusiasm to flit around the exhibited works, have a few laughs and enjoy the art. It was all contemporary, some of it was definitely the funky, comical and plain bizzare yet awesome side of contemporary while others were definitely along the lines of 'now come on, that just really pushing it.' I have quite a high threshold for being able to read into an analyse abstract works but a few were beyond me.
In the mix were works by a few more renown New Zealand artists who I'd studied in art history such as Colin McCahon and Shane Cotton and I barely managed to refrain from salivating on the floor. Seeing as most the works were going for what was most probably more than I am currently worth, we were there to appreciate the art. Were I a little more energetic, I would've been able to read more analysis into some of the works, but as we had just learnt, apparently that it not what it is about, but rather the smaller piece next to the work stating the price. Somehow, by the end of the evening, the $45 admission didn't seem like quite so much.
As it was Friday night, I was at a very high risk of collapsing into an exhausted vegetable like state. The keynote lecture on 'The Curious Economies of Contemporary Art' by Don Thompson was however absolutely fantastic so managed to stay focused. Since studying art history and in particular the more modern end of things, I have been interesting in the debate of exactly what constitutes as art. As we move further into a modernist and then post modernist era, it is a conception challenged and pushed even further. It is an idea Thompson based his book $12 Million Stuffed Shark around when Damien Hurst's formaldehyde stuffed shark sold for $12 million and so used it as a starting point for discussion around the nature of exhibiting, selling, and collecting art.I have decided that I don't have what it takes to be an art collector. It all seemed very elaborate in its complex politics and seems to miss the point of actually owning a work of art for the sake of aesthetic value. He discussed the difference between the value and the price of an artwork and like with any consumer product, the effect of branding. Where brands like Gucci are among the 'top of the line' or 'elite' status of branding in day to day consumer products, it is the same for auction houses and galleries as place of purchase, or who has owned it before you, as opposed to the work itself. It was in the pop era that artists began to play with the idea of an artwork being sought after because of the artist, where the artist was the consumer product which now seems to have shifted again.
This is undoubtedly is a comment on the context in which art is created. Pop art was born in a post war context in a boom of consumerism hence why art and the artist began to focus on this not just in subject matter but in how art was collected. Art is now “a competitive high-stakes game, fuelled by great amounts of money and ego”, it has now become a trophy of wealth, a status symbol. It seems an almost paradoxial response to a society in economic recession, where the idea of shelling out $12million and upwards for an artwork without a second thought is incredulous yet for the wealthiest is mere change. The art itself is bigger, bolder but that no longer seems to be the point.
Take again for example again, Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. It is a piece of conceptual art, where the value is in the idea as opposed to the physical artwork. When the first one started to rot and leak formaldehyde, Hirst simply replaced it to no detriment to it's value. Thompson did however argue that when you buy an artwork, you are buying all that comes with it, including it detrimentation over time. This got me thinking about the full wall frescoes in the chapels of Florence by iconic Renaissance artists - I am determined to see these before they are completely destroyed. Perhaps the effects of time and weather are what add to their iconic status, that they show all that time they have been around, physical embodiment and symbol of the context and society it was created in.With any discussion around art, one can never seem to reach any solid conclusion but Thompson offered us one: if you buy a work of art, buy it because it speaks to you, because it means something to you. I agree with this and any art I'd possess with be that of some personal signifcance. I have on my wall at this moment a few sketches done by my friends, varying levels of complexity but all given to me which I have since had framed. Where I would consider exhibiting my works given the opportunity, I'd want people to engage with my art and want it because it means something to them.
In saying that, afterwards the lecture I managed to find the strength and enthusiasm to flit around the exhibited works, have a few laughs and enjoy the art. It was all contemporary, some of it was definitely the funky, comical and plain bizzare yet awesome side of contemporary while others were definitely along the lines of 'now come on, that just really pushing it.' I have quite a high threshold for being able to read into an analyse abstract works but a few were beyond me.
In the mix were works by a few more renown New Zealand artists who I'd studied in art history such as Colin McCahon and Shane Cotton and I barely managed to refrain from salivating on the floor. Seeing as most the works were going for what was most probably more than I am currently worth, we were there to appreciate the art. Were I a little more energetic, I would've been able to read more analysis into some of the works, but as we had just learnt, apparently that it not what it is about, but rather the smaller piece next to the work stating the price. Somehow, by the end of the evening, the $45 admission didn't seem like quite so much.
