שווה לקרוא בטרם תתפתו לרכוש או להשקיע באמנות מודרנית בכלל וישראלית בפרט
האמנות הנעלמת של יגאל אהובי: מציע למכירה מספר עבודות, כולן
של אמנים ישראלים, במחירים שנחשבים נמוכים במיוחד
יצירת מופת יפה וחשובה
דוגמית למה שאתם מפספסים
ככלכלן אני מביא סיכום מסקנות והמלצות בראש הפוסט הזה
סיכום ומסקנות חלק גדול מהמסחר ביצירות אמנות הוא נכלולי ברמות
אני לא הייתי מתקרב לגלריה כדי לקנות יצירה נסו לקנות מהאמן ישירות
הבאתי לכם קובץ מאמרים של אנשים שחושפים מה מתרחש בשוק הזה
כדי להוכיח טענותי, שרבים מסכימים להם בשתיקה
המוזיאונים בראש תעשיית זבל והכתרתו כאמנות וניפוח מטורף של מחירים ל”יצירות”
וכל העם עונה אמן- כי מנהלי המוזיאונים ודאי יודעים ומבינים אמנות נשגבת מהי.
אבל אתם, אם אינכם כל אחד, פתחו עיניים ושפטו בראש פתוח.
ואפתח באוסף יצירות הזויות האם
לדעתכם הן ראויות לתצוגה?
באתר זה יש עוד
לצערי כדי להגיע לתמונות שהיו בכתבות המקורית יהיה עליכם לגשת למקור
High-end art is one of the most manipulated markets in the world
By Allison SchragerJuly 11, 2013
A gallerist and an economist walked into an art gallery opening. The paintings on display featured the rape of dismembered corpses. The economist was horrified, but the gallerist said the work was good and the artist had a promising career. The gallerist was right. The artist is now a hot, emerging artist whose work sells for tens of thousands of dollars.
This is precisely what makes the art market baffling to outsiders. You’d think the value of art would depend on its aesthetic value; a picture you enjoy looking at on your wall. How could a dismembered corpse artist be remotely successful? Yet these paintings were classified as desirable by the art market.
To understand why, you must first understand the economics of art galleries in America and Europe. Almost all primary art sales—art bought from the artist as opposed to another collector—occurs through art galleries. Galleries set taste and prices—sets is actually an understatement. Galleries manipulate prices to an extent that would be illegal in most industries.
Someone with a financial interest controlling the market is worrisome. In any market, price manipulation causes distortions, shortages, and inefficiency. But in its own peculiar way the primary art market functions; contemporary art generates tens of billions of dollars of revenue each year. But would it work better with more regulation? Would that make art cheaper, more accessible and would there be more working artists? If you ask a gallerist why prices must not be “subject to the whims of the market” they’d probably tell you it’s to protect the artist. That sounds disingenuous coming from a party with a financial interest, but there is some truth to that statement. The nature of art as a commodity inherently makes efficient prices, meaning prices that reflect all available information about value, impossible. Value is subjective; the intrinsic value of a painting is paint and canvas—beyond that value is often a matter of taste. This is why the industry has developed an intricate signaling process where the approval of a handful of galleries, collectors and museums, determines what is good and valuable. Dealers who own and work at art galleries invest many resources in building the artist’s brand. But artists often take years to mature and have uneven periods, so any perception that an artist is over-hyped or overpriced can be anathema to his career. Value in art can be arbitrary but brands are fragile.
One of the worst things a dealer can do is over-price a work because they can’t lower the price when it doesn’t sell. Dealers may have an extraordinary amount of control over price, but desirable collectors are well educated consumers and won’t blatantly overpay. Galleries may drop an artist rather than lower the price of their work because doing so sends a bad signal about the value of the artist and the credibility of the gallery.
But perhaps it’s a vicious cycle. Prices can’t be trusted which necessitates more manipulation. If pricing were more meaningful perhaps artists’ careers would survive uneven periods or price bubbles for their work.
How brand building leads to price manipulation
In most markets prices are public knowledge and the commodity goes to the highest bidder. That process may be imperfect, but it does a good job at setting prices where supply meets demand; prices reflect their market value. The primary art market is different because galleries keep sales prices secret and are particular about who they’ll sell to; art prices are not market-set prices.
Galleries invest many resources in the artists they represent. They mentor them by visiting their studios, fostering their relationship with collectors and plot their career. But they’ll probably only represent a rising artist for a short time as the artist progresses they’ll move on to a higher tier gallery. Galleries promote the artist by presenting their art at an exhibition or at an art fair like Basel. Before new work is shown, the gallery has already offered it to their preferred clients, which include museums as well as major public and private collections. Their motivation to select buyers is inclusion in a major collection that signals that an artist’s work has been endorsed by the art world. This can increase the value of the artist’s portfolio and catapult him into another tier of prestige. Galleries also want to know the buyer in order to keep track of the work. That way they can ensure it’s available for exhibitions in the future and that it won’t be sold on the secondary auction market.
Control over the market is so important to galleries that they won’t sell to collectors who will flip the art in the secondary market. Art on the secondary market is often sold at an auction house. Once an artist’s work goes to auction the prices are observable to the public, and anyone (often uttered with disdain) can buy it. It is not uncommon for gallery owners to bid on their artists work at the auction in order to control the market price.
Despite the control galleries wield over the market, there exist some observable parameters which determine value. Art dealer Marla Goldwasser explained her basic criteria for valuing art. First and foremost is the aesthetic value. It need not necessarily be pretty to look at, but that often helps. Art is considered more valuable if it is provocative or especially moving. Red art tends to sell for more than work that features other colors. Felix Salmon observed polka dots, and more of them, also can increase value. (Value is established by comparing similar work of artists who are at the same stage in their career.) Scarcity also matters; a print which has several identical copies fetches less than a unique painting. Intrinsic value and labor also can matter, the size of the painting and material used often influence price. Being sold through a gallery, especially a high profile one, increases value. Goldwasser concedes sometimes you can get an equally attractive work on the street, for a fraction of the price, but you miss the investment value and social prestige of building a collection.
What high-end buyers look for in a work of art
A few years ago a young art collector from New York I know bought a painting from a New York gallery. A few weeks later she went to the Miami Basel art fair where a celebrity heard about the painting. He offered to buy it for more than 50 times what she paid for it. She refused and he raised his offer to a sum that would mean she’d never have to work again. She explained that she would not bargain with him—any resale of the painting must go through the gallery, so they’ll get a commission and select the price—not her. The young collector knew there would be consequences to making the sale. She may have owned the painting, but reselling it at a profit without the gallery’s permission would blackball her from the art industry. To her, that was not worth the millions she was offered.
Art collectors are different than consumers or investors in any other market. High-power art collecting is both time consuming and expensive, so collectors tend to be very wealthy. I spoke to a collector who is a member of one of America’s best-known collecting dynasties. His family has been extraordinarily influential in American art. “Art collection is more of an avocation than a utilitarian pursuit,” he says. He loves the art in his collection, but the social benefits are a large part of his enjoyment. He’s part of community of collectors who go to fairs together and enjoy a friendly rivalry around acquiring the work of certain artists. He’s spent his life in the company of major collectors, dealers, and artists, but is skeptical of the industry. He believes prices are often bogus; bad art often sells for far too much and he questions the integrity of many dealers. Several collectors I spoke with echoed this sentiment, yet each of them are avid collectors because they believe they are well informed, rarely overpay and enjoy what they’ve acquired.
Emerging art collector Jeremy Steinke does not merely look for art that’s pretty. He looks for rigor, art that tells a story, even if it may be disturbing, or very large in scale. Sandini Poddar, a former curator of the Guggenheim, looks for originality and a point of view: “Great art should communicate an idea.” Many of her favorite artists are from Asia and the Middle East artists who are social activists. The artist must display good technique and have a narrative that distinguishes itself or as she says “play outside the rules,” not only among his contemporaries, but within the history of art.
Large museums and prestigious collectors often pay less and have special access to certain work. Joan Young, Director of Curatorial Affairs at the Guggenheim, says that the museum may receive up to a 30% discount or higher. You’d think being in the permanent collection of a museum as prestigious as the Guggenheim would be so valuable to the artists’ brand that the museum would get an even bigger discount. But Young cautions: “You have to pick where to play hardball.” Even the Guggenheim faces competition and needs to cultivate a relationship with and fairly compensate the galleries.
Is there an alternative?
Price manipulation occurs at the elite end of the primary market. There exists a lower tier art market, full of small unknown, local galleries outside of large urban areas where prices are listed, transactions occur at that price, and the work is sold to whomever wants to buy it off the street. These collectors buy art simply because they love the work but artists who sell at these types of galleries probably can’t support themselves selling their work.
Would the market function better, and perhaps include more working artists, if galleries didn’t manipulate prices? An alternative to the gallery system in America and Europe exists in the Chinese art market. Unlike the primary art market in the West, 50% of primary sales in China are at auctions. This would seem to be more efficient, because prices are observable and set in the market, not selected by the gallery. But the Chinese market is extremely volatile, many think it’s over-heating, and price-rigging at auctions is common.
Another alternative is returning to the patron model which was popular before the gallery system. The gallery system is probably a better alternative because the artist has more stability than with a patron- model. With the patron model artists are dependent on the goodwill of a handful of people for their entire livelihood. It would probably mean even fewer working artists, because only artists with access to wealth patrons can support themselves. Galleries facilitate the relationships between collectors and artists and help groom the artists. Without that intermediary, fewer artists could thrive.
Another alternative would be forcing galleries to be more transparent. The sale price of a work of art could be publically listed, the same way that’s done for houses in the real estate market. Since 1988, New York State required galleries to “conspicuously display” prices, but this is often not enforced, or the prices displayed aren’t what the work actually sells for.
Enforcing this rule might be step in the right direction. If pricing were transparent, it would probably be lower and art more available to a wider range of collectors. This would be an unwelcome move for dealers and elite artists but it could also demystify the market and lower tier artists could earn more because the market would be less segmented. To some extent technology is naturally making it happen. Websites are cropping up that sell primary art and make it more available to the masses. Even Amazon has set its sights on the art market. It plans to partner with certain galleries to sell some of their inventory online but it’s not clear whether it will become a “market for lemons,” where the best pieces from the most promising artists are still reserved for certain collectors and prices of promising emerging artists still unknown.
Collectors and galleries prefer provocative work; a more transparent market might change tastes. The dealers and collectors I spoke to all believe they serve a vital role by setting high culture for our society. Financial interest aside, they are well suited for this task because many art insiders spend years in the industry and studied art history: They place contemporary art in its historical context. What most of us lay-people like, they’d find trite and devoid of social value. Artists who push boundaries and reflect social disorder serve an important role in history and our modern society. Yet in other cultural mediums, the masses determine taste. There is some terrible reality television, but it coexists with great television dramas which reflect important and uncomfortable aspects of our society.
That suggests the market doesn’t get it totally wrong when it comes to culture. But the price manipulation does seem to ensure a stable career for the elite, fledgling artists who make it in the industry. Stability is important because most artists take decades to mature and produce their best work. If they didn’t have decades to devote themselves to their craft we’d be bereft of some wonderful art which enriches us and will resonate with future generations.
Even if the market were more open there would always be an elite market for high-end contemporary art. This kind of work will always be expensive and keep us Real Housewives-watching, Thomas Kinkade-lovers priced out of that market. Price transparency probably may not make much difference in that market. Besides, even if collectors do end up overpaying, these tend to be very wealthy people. Being outraged at the practice of high-end art price rigging is like being upset that the market for high end yachts is inefficient. There are probably worse injustices in the world than wealthy people paying too much for art, which explains why there hasn’t been more regulation in this market. Defenders of the price manipulation contend it’s to protect artists and it seems to be true, at least for the elite artists who work the gallery system. But it could be the manipulation necessitates more manipulation, which ultimately benefits the galleries, and results in fewer working artists.
Think you can spot a fraud? This $80 million art scam fooled the experts
Published 8:03 AM ET Fri, 17 Aug 2018 Updated 10:44 AM ET Fri, 17 Aug 2018
The biggest art fraud in modern U.S. history was shockingly simple. Yet it went on for 15 years, duped some of the world’s most sophisticated collectors, brought down a 165-year-old New York gallery, and brought in more than $80 million. It is also a cautionary tale for anyone thinking of dabbling in the art world.
“Art and jewelry are the last sort of bastions of unregulated business,” retired special agent Meridith Savona of the FBI’s Art Crimes Unit said in an interview with CNBC’s “American Greed.” “If you’re a collector, if you’re in this art world, it truly is buyer beware.”
Glafira Rosales first appeared on the New York art scene in 1995, showing up at the venerable Knoedler Gallery with a painting that she claimed was the work of abstract expressionist Mark Rothko. And Rosales said there was more where that painting came from. Claiming to represent a mysterious Mexican collector known only as Mr. X, she said she was helping him unload a collection of previously unknown works by Rothko and fellow expressionists Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning, and Jackson Pollock, among others. If true, it would be a treasure trove of modern art.
“This art is some of the most valued art of the 20th century,” said author Maria Konnikova, who wrote about the scam in her 2016 book “The Confidence Game.” “People paid tens of millions of dollars for it, and we haven’t had anything new in it for a while.”
But in fact, the art Rosales was peddling was the work of Chinese immigrant Pei-Shen Qian, who had previously made his living hawking portraits on the streets of Manhattan. Qian would imitate the styles of the masters, then “age” his work using substances like tea or dirt from a vacuum cleaner. It worked like a charm, with one purported Rothko abstract selling for $8.3 million, and a fake Jackson Pollock painting selling for $17 million, before art experts began to realize something was amiss.
In 2013, Rosales pleaded guilty to fraud, money laundering and tax evasion, and was ordered to forfeit $81 million. To date, she is the only person convicted in the case. Rosales, who cooperated with authorities and was sentenced to the three months she had already served in jail, said she was coerced into the scam by an abusive boyfriend, Jose Carlos Bergantinos Diaz. He is currently in Spain, having managed to avoid extradition to the U.S. on a 12-count federal indictment alleging fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and false statements. Also indicted were his brother Jesus, who is also believed to be in Spain, and Qian, who fled to China.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The Knoedler Gallery and its director, Ann Freedman, who said they were duped along with everyone else, have not been charged with wrongdoing. But facing multiple customer lawsuits, the gallery closed in 2011 after 165 years in business.
“If you enter into buying a work of art because you think it’s going to be a phenomenal investment, that’s a warning sign,” Art Fiduciary Advisors managing partner Doug Woodham told “American Greed.” “Stop, stop, stop!”
He said the Rosales case is an example — albeit an extreme one — of the perils facing art collectors and investors at all levels of experience.
“When you’re thinking about buying a work of art, I think the first thing you have to do is say, ‘What’s the price of this relative to my income or wealth position and how comfortable would I be if this work of art ended up not being worth nearly as much as I paid for it?’,” he said.
“If this work of art is $10,000, if in five years it was worth $5,000 or zero, how are you going to feel?”
If you are still ready to take the plunge into the art world, Woodham offers some tips.
Know your seller
“For a lot of people who are buying art, it’s a hobby, it’s a passion sport, it’s something that they haven’t done before and so oftentimes, people let their guard down,” Woodham said.
He said it is important to know whom you are buying from. Large, established art galleries may be your safest bet.
“If you buy something from that gallery and it turns out to be a fake, or you’d like to return it and get a store credit, will that gallery be in a financial position to be able to do that? The smaller the firm, oftentimes the harder it is for them to provide those sorts of buyer protections,” he said. “The larger the gallery, the easier it is for them to do that.”
Of course, there was no gallery more established than Knoedler, which went into business in 1846. That is why Woodham suggests adding language to any purchase agreement to protect your rights should the art turn out to be fake.
“Try to get the gallery to agree that when you purchase the work of art that they’re not in possession of any information that would call into question the authenticity of the work,” he said. “Fraud doesn’t have a statute of limitations. So, it’s so important, when you’re spending serious money, that you can put into a purchase agreement just a simple statement: ‘The gallery is not in possession of any information that would call into question the authenticity of this painting.'”
If the seller will not agree to the language, that could be a red flag.
Woodham cautioned against buying art from a sole proprietor, or from a friend.
“Separate your personal relationship with them from the commercial transaction you’re entering into,” he said.
Do your homework
Woodham suggests novice investors study hard before even considering a purchase, specializing in artists, genres or periods that interest them.
“Maybe you want to collect women artists from the 1900s because you might think that they’ve been underrepresented or underappreciated,” he said. “You may be interested in just collecting cutting-edge contemporary art. Finding an area of focus is important, because then you’re going to learn how the marketplace works for that group of artists or that class of artists, and the odds of you being taken advantage of are lower.”
He also suggests getting involved in the auction market — not as a buyer just yet, but as an observer.
“Start going to the major auction houses and seeing the works that are for sale in the important preview period,” he said. That is typically three or four days ahead of the auction, when the works to be sold are on display for the public.
“You can now watch online the auctions take place, and so you can see which objects have lots of interest, lots of bidding activity, and then afterwards you can see realized prices,” he said.
To spot a fake
Becoming familiar with the artist or period that interests you can help you spot the genuine article. But determining the true origins of a work of art is a complicated mix of science, and, well, art. And it is best left to the experts.
The most important aspect is known as “provenance” — the pedigree or chain of custody of the artwork in question.
“You want to try and trace all those steps to make sure that it actually was in the artist’s studio and that you know there were legitimate owners throughout that chain of command,” Woodham said.
Another factor is called “connoisseurship.” Experts on a particular artist or group of artists study things like brush strokes and signatures to help determine if a piece is genuine.
“You’re able to stand in front of the work of art knowing lots of other work by that artist and be able to sense whether it’s real or not,” Woodham said.
Other experts use scientific testing of paints, canvasses or other materials to determine if the work is legitimate.
Finally, Woodham said, beware of anything described as “newly discovered” works of a famous artist. He calls that “the pond that forgers play in.” It is also how Glafira Rosales’ Mr. X collection was portrayed.
“I think if you’re offered something that’s newly discovered, and there isn’t an exhibition history, and it’s offered as a deal, run quickly,” he said, “because that’s, I think, a double flag that you’ve got a problem.”
Comedian Adam Conover Says the Art Market Is a Scam. Here’s What He Gets Right—and Wrong.
Is he aiming for accuracy, or just truthiness?
Brian Boucher, August 10, 2017
Creator/host Adam Conover speaks onstage during the “Adam Ruins Everything” panel at the TCA Turner Summer Press Tour 2016 Presentation at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on July 31, 2016. Photo Charley Gallay/Getty Images for Turner.
Is the art market no more than a playground for snobs and crooks? The comedian Adam Conover certainly thinks so. He makes the case in a five-minute video released yesterday as the latest in his web series “Adam Ruins Everything.” The segment, dripping with a Morley Safer-worthy level of contempt for the art world, has already exceeded one million views.
Conover’s thrust is that the art market is hopelessly corrupt, and manipulated by a tiny cabal of oily back-room wheeler-dealers who not only determine the price of art and rig the system to enrich themselves—they also define “what art is.”
Some of Conover’s claims—which echo many complaints lobbed at the art world in recent years—are better-researched than others. A principal problem with the video is that “the art market” is described as a monolith, but most in the art world recognize that “the art market” is in fact a constellation of mini-markets, and that the business of a mom-and-pop shop bears little resemblance to that of an international behemoth like Gagosian. (Likewise, the stock market isn’t only populated by corporate raiders, inside traders, and Apple but also hundreds of millions of striving businesses operating with public investment.) The climactic claim that the corrupt market determines “what art is” also discounts the many practices that aim to wriggle free of capital (see: social practice, performance art, etc.)
But he’s not always wrong. Below, we consider a handful of the creatively coiffed comedian’s claims.
- Big Galleries Keep Prices Secret So They Can Change Them Depending on Who the Buyer Is.
Businesses in New York—including art galleries—are required by law to “conspicuously display” prices for their goods. In fact, hardly any Gotham galleries do so, though lawmakers have tried to crack down on this. That said, some galleries are open about money and will post, or at least disclose, prices when asked. (Still, many inflate the sticker price by 20 percent and then knock it down to make the buyer feel he or she is getting a deal.)
As for adjusting what they charge for different customers, galleries do offer varying discounts, and some buyers—a museum, say, or a collector like Eli Broad with a reputation for buying an artist’s work long-term and in-depth—are more desirable than others.
Truth quotient: Mostly true.
- Galleries Discriminate Against Novice Collectors… Like Poor Little Harry Potter.
To make the case that dealers can be less than welcoming to potential buyers who aren’t part of a villainous secret society of art profiteers, Conover chooses the odd example of Daniel Radcliffe, who was once spurned when he sought to buy a work of art, Conover alleges, citing a report in the New York Observer. But Conover didn’t read the whole story. As Radcliffe told the Guardian (and as cited by the Observer), the artist in question, Jim Hodges, intervened and insisted the gallery sell to him. Also, a multimillionaire actor as the little guy? Again, strange choice.
Truth quotient: Mostly bogus.
- Auction Bidding Is All a Lie, Because Major Auction Houses “Straight-Up Pay People to Bid” and Auctioneers Call Out Fake “Chandelier Bids.”
Yes, top-dollar auction sales have become complicated transactions, and a third party will sometimes privately make a bid on a work of art before the sale. If the work ends up selling above that price, the third party gets a percentage of the upside. (This arrangement is known as a “third-party guarantee.”) But even if it does open up the door to the kind of arcane yet lucrative financial machinations that wealthy financiers specialize in, it’s a bit drier and less “straight-up” than the cartoon nefariousness portrayed in the video.
That said, the practice of “chandelier bidding,” in which an auctioneer calls out fake bids during a live sale, is very much real. As an auctioneer inches closer to the minimum price for which a seller has agreed to part with a work (known as a “reserve”), he may point to invisible eager bidders in the back of the room. It’s all part of an effort to foster drama and conceal the true reserve price, which auction houses say helps the consignor get the best possible outcome.
Buyers at these high levels are generally familiar with what’s happening—and the fine print at the back of the sales catalogues does acknowledge both these practices. But to a neophyte, such hieroglyphics and theatrics would legitimately seem impenetrable, and maybe a little sketchy.
(Sotheby’s and Christie’s both declined to comment.)
Truth quotient: True at stratospheric price levels, otherwise mostly bogus.
Christie’s celebrate their 250th anniversary this month. Photo: courtesy Christie’s.
- Auction Houses Are a Great Place for Crooks to Defraud the Government and Launder Dirty Money.
True, despite auction houses’ best efforts (and they have phalanxes of lawyers trying to keep them out of trouble), some bad actors do buy art with dirty money. The US Department of Justice last year brought a case against Malaysian tycoon Jho Low, alleging that he bought $137 million worth of art at auction, including a Basquiat and a Monet, with funds embezzled from the Malaysian government.
Conover asserts that collectors who donate artworks to museums are bad actors, too—they get a tax write-off for charitable donations, and, crucially, he says they can claim whatever value they want for the artworks on their tax forms. But the IRS isn’t stupid, and has increasingly scrutinized these valuations. Private museums, which offer tax benefits to their owner-donors, have also come under scrutiny.
Truth quotient: Partially correct, partly seriously bogus.
Two art dealers conspire to get rich off a hot dog-eating artist’s “condiment-based” work. Photo via YouTube.
- You Can Buy Art on the Street That’s Just as Good as What You Could Buy in a Gallery. But Those Artists “Aren’t Allowed to Succeed.”
You can also find gold nuggets in a riverbed, but considering the time it takes to find the right riverbed and learn the techniques for locating the gold, years of your life could have passed by. Galleries are businesses run by specialists whose primary value proposition is that they know who good artists are, have relationships with them, and can cut through the chaff to get the cream of the cream.
Yes, the art world, like many businesses that serve the one percent, runs on nepotism and connections. But these art dealers (and curators) are also constantly on the lookout for undiscovered talent. The clubbiness of the art market is more often the result of laziness or lack of resources than a nefarious pyramid scheme; tastemakers often fall back on their existing networks rather than taking the considerably more difficult path of looking beyond them. That said, true talent is rare, and sometimes takes a long time to be properly recognized, either by museums or the art market. Jean-Michel Basquiat started out as a graffiti writer, and now his works can sell at auction for upward of $110 million. Why wouldn’t dealers create a million art stars from thin air, if they were such skilled manipulators?
כאן אני מביא עוד דברים שכתבתי בעבר והם עומדים נכונים גם היום
ממה ניזונים אוצרי המוזיאונים ומדוע מזינים אתכם בקקא
במוזיאון ישראל תוכלו לגלות כי מפלס הזבל המתיימר להיות אומנות מציף את היכליו. ציירו לכם או דמיינו אליפסה אדומה מצויירת על קנווס לבן בגודל של גיליון לערך. קשטו, טיפות דם הולך טוב. זהו. יש לכם יצירה שווה ומוערכת ביותר. אתם אמנים ראויים להכרה עולמית בכשרונכם ולתפוס קיר שלם באולם במוזיאון הזה
אה כן, והערת שוליים, כמובן, כבימי סטאלין, אתם חייבים להיות בעלי השקפה פוליטית ודוקטרינה נכונה ואתם ממש חייבים להזכיר את האפרטהייד, הדיכוי והכיבוש
ICA fires chairman over ‘tat’ art jibe
Ivan Massow, the chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Art, was last night fired for daring to suggest that the art establishment might have “disappeared up its own arse”.
The millionaire insurance tycoon, who was yesterday branded a “bit of a pillock” by a board member for labeling most conceptual art as “pretentious, self-indulgent craftless tat that I wouldn’t accept even as a gift”, compared his sacking to facing a really bad firing squad “comprised of one bloke with a blank bullet.” In a grand gesture of defiance, Massow had sent the ICA a toy gun so the board “could use it to dispatch me cleanly and humanely”.
But having told them to “sack me or back me”, Massow claimed no one wanted to pull the trigger. “It was a case of, ‘It wasn’t me Ivan, it was them who want rid of you.’ I didn’t want to cause them any further embarrassment so I asked them to vote on whether I should resign. They did and I left.”
The article maintained that the art establishment, led by the head of the Tate empire Nicholas Serota, had turned conceptual art into the
“totalitarian state art”
that all young artists must conform to if they were to succeed.
Massow had been “hopeful” of surviving the attempted putsch. “I merely wanted to start a debate, that kind of questioning is surely what the ICA is about?”
But board member Ekow Eshun said he left them little choice and accused Massow of being disrespectful to the ICA, the exhibitors and the director. He added: “I have no problem with Ivan bringing up this debate. But Ivan has been ramping up the story all week. I think he’s been a little bit of a pillock.”
Since you’re here …
ומותר האמנות על הנפיחה אין
מעשה בנפיחה אמנותית
אמנות או נפיחה
ואפתח במשל – גברת מגונדרת נכנסת לסוכנות יגואר. היא מסתכלת סביבה וכשהיא רואה את המכונית המושלמת היא ניגשת לבדוק אותה. כשהיא מתכופפת לבדוק את ריפוד העור משתחררת לה נפיחה רועשת
נבוכה מאד היא מסתכלת סביב סביב כדי לבדוק אם מישהו שם לב לתאונה הקטנה ומקווה שאיש המכירות לא יצוץ לה פתאום. ברם, כשהיא מסתובבת בחזרה היא מגלה את המוכר עומד לידה
“שלום לך גבירתי, איך אפשר לעזור לך היום”
באי נוחות היא מתעניינת: “מה מחירו של הרכב הנחמד הזה”
עונה לה המוכר: “גבירתי, אם הפלצת כשרק נגעת בה, כשתשמעי את המחיר תחרבני במכנסיים”.
גם זו אמנות? תיאור מעשה היצירה – המיצג:
ביוני 2009, גיליתי בחצרי עלמה שעסקה במרץ רב מלווה בתחושת שליחות דחופה בציפוי גזע עץ שסק, בשעווה חמה.
לשאלתי מה פשר הטיפול הבוטני בעץ ולמעשיה הסבירה לי שמדובר במיצג אמנותי שהיא עורכת והבטיחה כי תסיר את השעווה עם סיום המייצג, יהה טיבו כאשר יהיה או וואטאבר. אם כי פרשנותי האישית גורסת שמדובר במשל בו הזבל מכסה את הטבע, כמעשה אומנות זו המזהם את כל מושגי האמנות
עיניכם הרואות כי אני ועצי מצופים בשעווה ומצפים עד בוש.
אינטגריטי מאמנים מורמים מעם ? – הכל מותר בשם חופש האמנות והביטוי.
עץ השסק נותר עם חבישת שעווה, שאינה יורדת ואני חששתי כי ייבש, יגווע על מזבח מעשה “האמנות” הזה, וביליתי שעות רבות בקילוף תועבה אמנותית זו.
יש מי השהדבר ייראה כקרבן זעיר למען המטרה שהמיצג הייחודי והנשגב הלזה ייקדם את האמנות המתקדמת בישראל ויזכה לשבחים, התפעלות, התפעמות ולציונים טובים בקרב האקדמיה, מבקרי האמנות ושאר חוגי האמנות המתקדמת. – נו טוף, מי אני שאעצור את הקידמה
את תשובתי לשאלה אני מותיר לכם לנחש.
מה אתם חושבים?
Fart art in wax
First parable – a fancy looking lady walks in the Jaguar agency. She looks around and when she sees the perfect car she checks it. When she bends over to check out the leather upholstery she released quite a loud fart.
She looks very embarrassed around to see if anyone noticed the small accident and hopes that the salesman did not pop out of her suddenly. However, when she turned back she discovers that the seller is just behind her.
“Hello madam, how can I help you today” uncomfortably She say “what the price of the car?” the seller: “Madam, if you farted when you saw the car, when you hear the price you’ll ‘shit in your pants.”
This is also art? Description of the act of creation – Performance:
In June 2009, I discovered in my yard a young lady vigorously with an urgent sense of holy mission coating a tree trunk lining, with hot wax.
When I asked what the meaning of this botanical wood treatment she explained to me that she conducts art exhibit and assured me she will remove the wax with the completion of representing. My personal interpretation suggests that the parable where garbage art contaminants the concepts of art and nature.
You see that the wax-coated tree and me are still expecting.
Integrity? Artists? Meaning? – Anything goes in the name of freedom of art creation and expression.
Loquacity tree was left with his wax artistic garment, which does not go down and I was afraid that it’ll dry up, die on the altar of an act of “art” that, and I spent many hours peeling this artistic abomination.
Some may take this as a tiny sacrifice for sake of art. OK, just by art curators, media, academia, art critics and other advanced art circles.
Open your eyes. Think for yourself.