Matthew Collings: The art market judges what will sell, not what is the best quality - IQ2 debates
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligenc...
__________________________
www.intelligenc...
Matthew Collings argues against the motion "The art market is the best judge of good art" in this IQ2 debate at Saatchi Gallery on 7th October 2011.
Event info:
Picasso's Nude, Green Leaves and Bust became the world's most expensive painting last year when it sold for £65 million. A stupendous price, but one that reflects Picasso's status as one of the giants -- if not the overriding genius -- of 20th-century art. But do the high prices fetched at auction always indicate artistic merit? Aren't they often the result of a fraught bidding war between two super-rich collectors? Doesn't the $25 million stumped up for Jeff Koons' giant balloon model say more about the power of hype than the merit of the work itself? What's more, the market itself can easily be rigged. When Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull was purportedly sold for £50 million in 2007, rumour had it that Hirst himself was part of the consortium that bought it in order to drum up publicity and raise the market value of his other work.
So does the art market tell us only about fads and fashion and the egos of multimillionaires? Or should we overlook the hype and remember that in the long run the market rights itself and reflects the consensus on what great art really is? Come to the debate and hear the International Director at Christie's and top critics and experts thrash out the arguments.
don't see how this can even be subject to debate. he is spot on.
I always enjoy this man's intelligent programmes about art. His passion is infectious. He and Andrew Grahame Dixon are the best, in my humble, though always correct, opinion. Damien Hirst is a great businessman, a sly appropriator of others ideas, but NOT an artist....just needed to add that....
the fact his opponents call him not an artist, and that there are so many of them, makes him an artist.
@@SoSo-li6dn howd u work that one out
@@calmenzies3116 NOT MY PRESIDENT - IS A PRESIDENT.
@@SoSo-li6dn It's a bit different when it comes to Damien Hirst. "He's not an artist, he's a businessman" - Is not an artist, is a businessman. Man is a hack mate.
@@calmenzies3116 everything is business even art. Koons, Warhol, Kaws, Haring, man even DiVinci had staff.... Rembrandt was a businessman, you payed him to do your portrait and he did it. Hirsts critics really are blaming the market corrupt obsessed with exclusivity, association and bigness.
I like Matthew Collings, and I do think he has some very interesting and relevant things to say. It's just a shame that his own 'post modern' upbringing almost seems to halt him from saying what he instinctively wants to say. He calls certain excesses 'fun' but then castigates as 'childish and infantile' before shrinking back again, as if he's too timid, or too relatively minded, to stake out any ground. But its obvious that on an emotional level he does have definite opinions. But he havers.
timid is not a word you could associate with Matthew
@@josephuia Hmmm...well, I think he is timid in as much as he won't outright criticise the 'market' and has fully absorbed the relativism of his 'post modern' time which renders him unable to outright criticise the deleterious impact that consumerism has had on the world of art since the 1950's. It is why he and his contemporaries idolise Warhol so much when the man himself said he had 'nothing to say' and I think, actually, we can take him at his own word on that really...Warhol found a good gimmick and was perhaps the first public 'artist' (aside from Roy Lichtenstein and possibly Robert Rauschenberg who were the first in terms of age, but only pushed the concept so far) to offer an ironic 'meta' critique of his own work within the work itself...which is of course the name of the game these days in all visual and 'creative' media...to this end Warhol tapped into something about our modern world and his own work re-inforced this trend...but I am not sure it is even 'art' per se...it's visual commentary on the times rather than capturing any 'transcendent' qualities of the human experience that all great art does. Warhol did not leave behind a school of art that nourishes succeeding generations in the same was as the school of Michelangelo did...say...or the Impressionists. Yes...art shares a relationship with commerce which will mould it...but it should never be the whole sum of great art...nor should great art be simply redacted to the 'personal' it should be the artists personal experience transcending themselves towards a concept of the universal. I get the feeling Matthew Collings does realise this...but does not want to put this into words for fearing alienation from the art market and his savvy colleagues and so...thus...he havers here and is timid.
Good to hear Mathew Collins sounding sincere. The art market especially at its so called high end, has its own interests at heart. It is for dealers to sell to and advise those who want to invest in 'art' and don't know or care much about - aesthetics - history or theory but need to know the up and coming names (as punted by commercial art galleries) to invest in to make the biggest profit from - this has became too money, fame and even 'brand' driven. It has become so inflated that now in contemporary art we have a parade of one emporer's new clothes after another steeped in shallowness and cynicism rather than sincerety , meaning and depth.
I thought it was very clear, and correct. The market is good at assessing if something will sell, or make money, and that is what it is for. Whether that coincides with artistic value is a crapshoot. This is his point.
Art is anything, and can be made by anyone -- even children.
You can have a celebrity create art, and all of a sudden, it's worth alot of money. Not because of the art, but because it was the "artist" who created it.
I don't think it's a matter of "better art" or "what will sell" -- it's a mixture of both.
And art becomes like any other product for sell -- it's worth is what someone is willing to pay for it.
There, you're welcome.
You could say that the ultimate artist challenge as of the 2010s and 2020s is to make art that is both good quality AND will sell - best of both worlds
Does anyone know which "entire nation" he is referring to? I'm guessing it's China because I've heard of their huge art copying village somewhere.
As my soul creates it creates to give something back. The market doesn't see me.
The 'Market' today has incredibly bad taste.
Matthew, what is the place of the art critic in the Art Market ? Insider trading would seem to be pandemic.
A good example of a professional that understand a matter but can not communicate effectively.
For sale: 1 balloon. Will accept offers over $25 million.
Has it deflated yet. Lol
I think the value of art is determined by the unspoken meeting of the minds of the artist and the one who buys the art piece. The rest of this overthinking is rubbish and this guy needs to take a breather from himself.
The market is driven by collectors. Most collectors are not artists. Therefor the market is dictated by people who are simpletons when it comes to art quality. They are not looking for top quality because they do not understand what top quality art is. You can find this dilemma in any creative market. The markets for creative niches are usually dumbed down versions of whatever that market is selling, in this case art.
I’ve been painting for more than 40 years but missed out on art college because of an English mark while having a high art grade. That says it all for me
Bravo
Sorry, but there's way too much rambling on, not so easy to follow this gentleman's speech. Please get straight to the point. Well, he sort of gets better at getting his idea across near the end of his speech. :-(
That's the English oral tradition of intellectual monologue. If you think this is convoluted, you should watch parliamentary debates.
+Ayokalyb LOL. Sounds true.
Porcke075 it's only 10 minutes. Check your attention span.
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Lupe Fiasco brought me here.
I took twovsips of this debate, then I backed up and I turned around and I pitoooooood shit!
Value of thoughts not depends on market prices it depends feeling of buyer connection with that thought he or she pay for it how much buyer feel it then he or she pay its own value on his or her thoughts shown by any other people just like mirror on front of any one
the amount of gas they let out appalls me and throws me back to my studio and focus on my work than listen to this trash.
Very interesting
What would Clement Greenberg think of the Art Market ?
Just like the stock market or futures , bond or options markets, the art market is always right, even when it is wrong, when it comes to buying and selling. That is the way of commerce.If you can convince people with more dollars than sense, more power and buks to you. The quality in the market is that of selling confidence. There are any number of people who like to be seen contributing to art so they can be seen as cultured connoisseurs hoping for a place in history as a patron, like a modern day DeMedici . Alas it is more like '' never mind the quality, feel the width ''
The real quality of art has very little to do with some rich idiot's imagined status and prepossessing ego....don't tell them that though, they won't give you any money.
Just look at the market over 100 yr ago and the big names of then; you had a bunch of classicist hacks punching out well painted schmaltz to suit the egos of the well-healed_how history repeats itself.
Interesting points you've made. Seems generally plausible.
Great debate, Art is forever.
Brought
aye spots on
You are not talking about art.
One Turn up. Two Turn ups.
Quality factor- agree. Judgement- disagree.
If someone creates something because they feel compelled to 'create' then the result will be be a creation for the sake of creation. If someone creates something because they wish to sell, then the result will be a product made for the sake of capitalism. The first scenario may turn out to be nothing of consequence or, it may turn out to be something that helps evolve human consciousness. The second scenario will always be something that will have consequences on the market, and help the evolution of human greed.
Bravo! Mr Collings!
in hip-hop terms, he's basically saying that comical artists like Lil B and Riff Raff make room for higher quality art by existing, regardless of the market.
SLR
It is in fact humorous when certain conservatives accuse contemporary and modern art of cultural Marxism. Because usually they make the argument that the skill and time to make the art does not match the dollar amount.
What some conservatives argue then is Marx‘s Labor theory of value and thereby demand more Marxism.
It should be clear by now that they are really complaining about is „Cultural Capitalism“.
That was painful. Make a point. Sounded like Kamala Harris.
white man panel
lupe
"Bleak Amusing Miserablism" in the Age of Trump...
fiasco
What a poepol is this..