Recently, I got drunk on an after party and talking with a Well Known Artist focused with a horrible insistence on market mechanisms which can be used to become such a known artist. I can only hope he didn't get offended. But what is striking me in that is the question why I did it. Why after a certain amount of wine I got back to the art market. Not to the idea of art, a process of creation, or reception, any of those important things I could ask him but to the market. Does it mean that I still can't place an issue of art being on the market on my matrix? I still didn't position it in relation to the other aspects of art - its value moves up and down. How important it is? How important is to be known? Important for all participants of an art world, and important for an artist. Not in simply term of material value, but in term of intellectual and cultural importance. How the position on a market influences an intellectual and cultural value of a vary piece of art? How the position held by an artist changes a meaning and value of his work?
Heh, it seems to me that finally by accident I found a thesis of my Diploma Essay :)
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Sunflowers by Vincent van Gogh

"1987 - A painting by Vincent Van Gogh has been sold for $49m (£27m) - a world record for a work of art. The final price was more than twice what the painting, called Irises, had been expected to reach. (...)
The previous record for a painting was set in March by another Van Gogh masterpiece, Sunflowers. It was bought in London for just under $40m by a Japanese insurance company."
"In the spring of 1888 he [Reid] presented his father, James Reid, with two paintings by Van Gogh. The first was Still Life, Basket of Apples; the second was a portrait of Reid himself (...)His father later sold them to a French dealer for £10 each.
The (...) Moulin-de Blute-fin (...) was sold by Reid to another Glasgow collector, William McInnes, in July 1921 for £550. By the early 1920s, prices for Van Gogh's work were on the rise; and the first of a flurry of fakes were appearing. In 1923 Sir James Murray, an Aberdeen collector, acquired Still Life with Daisies and Poppies, which turned out to be a forgery.(...)
[Portrait of Alexander Reid] was eventually bought by Glasgow Museums in 1974 for £166,250.(...)
Olive Trees was painted outside the asylum in St-Rémy in 1889. It was first acquired in 1923 for £275. Today, the piece has strong Scottish ties, having been bought by the National Gallery for £1,600 in 1934.
Some recent figures:
1921 Gainsborough Blue Boy £148,000 (equivalent to £4.5 million today)
1970 Velasquez Juan de Pareja £2.3million (equivalent to £21million today)
1987 Van Gogh Sunflowers £22.5 million (equivalent to £39 million today)
1990 Van Gogh Dr Gachet £44 million (equivalent to £61million today)
(...)
Rubens’s Massacre of the Innocents sold in 2002 for £49.5 million = £11,000 per square inch
Van Gogh’s Dr Gachet sold in 1990 for £44 million = £66,000 per square inch
Raphael’s Madonna of the Pinks sold in 2004 for £35 million = £341,130 per square inch
Picasso’s Boy with a Pipe sold in 2004 for £58 million = £45,312 per square inch
2006 The New York Times said the city's Neue Galerie paid $135m (£73m) for the oil painting [The portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer by G. Klimt]in a private sale.
The $140m quoted as the price obtained by Sotheby's for Pollock's Number 5, 1948 would make it the highest figure known to have ever been paid for a painting.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
I have something to play

Monday, November 20, 2006
Birkbeck
I have been to Birkbeck just few minutes ago - I continuously got back emails sent to Arts Management so popped in to their IT dep. to see what is wrong. Findings?
I MUST be back to studying.
I MUST be back to studying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)