I discussed my experience with a friend of mine who works in a gallery in the city and she seemed to prefer the idea of buying art over books- art is something readily legible and easy to appreciate. But her reaction to Christie's was not one that I expected. The idea of art being sold somewhere other than a gallery utterly disgusted her. She said it is very unwise to sell contemporary art through an auction house because often the auction houses don't take into account the status of the market. They don't take control over the number of pieces put up for sale- a fact that can directly affect the price they fetch. A gallery may hold onto work, displaying one or two items for sale at a time, calculating (or controlling?)when the market is ripe for display and sale. They can (try to) control or create the demand for the artist. Additionally, a gallery may court several museums or collections- pitting them agaisnt one another to create competition and guarantee that the work ends up where it will be displayed, maintained and available to the public. I hadn't thought while wondering through the Contemporary Art at Christie's that those artists may actually look "desperate" (her words) and that appearing at an auction house rather than a gallery may be somehow irresponsible, both in terms of the money the artist can make, and the collection their work becomes part of. The idea of commerce that imprisons everything at Christie's was furthter heightened by the remarks of my gallery-biased friend. It seems there is nothing that can't be given a price tag, but more than that, those price tags are being constantly manipulated, and people devote their lives to the best way to manipulate them.
In a nice little "full circle" moment, I visited the Anthropologie store at Rockefeller Center after leaving Christie's and found a brilliant piece of book-art. An enormous frame enclosed a giant cameo-esque portrait of a lady that seemed to be set on a patchwork background. Upon closer inspection, the patchwork revealed itself as book bindings flattened out and overlapping, and the portrait was comprised of lines of text instead of sketch marks or paint strokes. Though expensive (by retail standards) this piece of art seemed to appeal to the bibliophile in a much more pure and simple way then the first edition Dickens at Chrisite's. It was conventionally pretty and uncomplicated in its message. Its eventual owner won't buy it because of the artist's "name" ( I don't think the store even displayed it) or even the texts it incorperates. His or her primary intentions won't be preservation for posterity or display of wealth. Its owner will be a book lover, with a secure income and an aim to beautify his or her home in a manner befitting his or her taste. It's just odd to realize that the pieces on auction at Christie's may not eventually wind up in the hands of someone who loves them in the same way.
Then again, the facts that books aren't "pretty" may mean that they are more assured of ending up with someone who truly appreciates them for what they are historically and what they hold in their pages than how they display "wealth."
No comments:
Post a Comment