Cryptic “Triptych” Shows Unsunny Side of Bacon
May 15, 2008
Francis Bacon’s 1976 “Triptych” sold for a record-shattering $86.3 million, making the Irish artist’s 3-panel work the most expensive contemporary work ever sold at auction, ever. And I do mean ever.
The figurative painter died in 1992, keeping this nightmare flesh-melting painting in the contemporary era. But for so many records to be broken at Sotheby’s yesterday is yet another slap in the face to so many Recession Chicken Littles determined to bring art collectors under the collective gloom-umbrella of economic downturn.
It’s hard to say whether this recession would have bothered Bacon, a direct descendant of the English statesman of the same name and a figure of angst and gender ambiguity if there ever was one. The life of Bacon was riddled with torturous thoughts and events, and calm was something he may never have heard of. His work largely reflects this, and one wonders what the buyer of 1976’s “Triptych” was looking for in the way of reassurance.
Jose Mugrabi, the Manhattan collector who walked away with a $9.5 million steal with Warhol’s “Detail of the Last Supper” was quoted by the New York Times as saying:
“I don’t understand why it did so well if the economy was mediocre…Maybe people feel safer with art.”
It seems ironic to me that the disquiet nature of Bacon’s 3-Panel is the symbol for ill-placed economic optimism in the art world. Should people feel safe with art? Or is there a bubble that art collectors are fabricating for protection?
Spencer Tunick: Naked White People
May 12, 2008
It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke.
What’s the difference between an Spencer Tunick and a peeping tom?
Answer: Organization.
Spencer Tunick’s sweeping, grand photos of mass nudity have garnered attention, well, because they are grand photos of mass nudity. If you haven’t had your morning’s dose of massive caucasian flesh, look no further.
I don’t know how hard it is to get hoards of Austrians to strip down for a camera, but if Tunick’s scope of work in any indicatoin, it’s not all that difficult. His latest work happened at the Ernst-Happel Stadium in Vienna. From the NYT: The “ephemeral installation” was “devised to capture and combine the spirit of sports, the grand sweeping waves of stadium architecture and the abstract relation of the human form to modern structures.”
Where Would We Be Without Scandalous Death?
May 9, 2008
Vincent Fantauzzo’s portrait of late superstar-friend Heath Ledger didn’t earn him the 2008 Archibald prize, but a popular vote awarded the portrait the “people’s choice” award according to the 32,000 voters at the Art Gallery of New South Wales.
This popular voting of pop-culture art is unsettling on many levels. The popular fascination with scandalous death never dwindles, and the skepticism surrounding Ledger’s “accidental” overdose continues to fuel gossip and rumor. But when does the subject of art become more important than the brush strokes themselves?
Fantauzzo’s piece is not a great work. It is a human study in anatomy and personality, with philosophical musings illustrated by the “whispering” of the shoulder-Heath’s on either side of the main subject’s head. The work is done accurately and well, but it is no master work. It was chosen as a prize winner because of the subject, and only because of the subject.
It leaves me wondering what the true purpose of art is. Does Fantauzzo feel robbed for his talent being wasted by the spotlight of his subject? Where does art end and marketing begin? What, readers, is the point of all this?
Does all art simply boil down to the fascination with scandalous death?
Fine art is the new black. Individuals from all walks of life are turning to fine art as the latest investment trend–which means exactly what you think it means.
The bourgeois is in.
The middle class is snapping up Josef Albers and Rothkos like Krispy Kreme donuts at 5am. Calling the art pieces “an investment” these Johnny-come-lately’s are viewing 20th and 21st century masterpieces as the perfect addition to the stock portfolio. And are they wrong to do so?
According to a recent US News & World Report article, art collecting is not just for the rich anymore. Down-home folks who would never consider a bite of foie gras are scooping up Degas’ and Daumiers’ like crudites on a platter. Has the art world taken an unprecedented turn for the financial?
The art world is notorious for its dependence on the cash-driven, money-hungry subset of the population. But bear in mind, if you would, that though this portion of the Earth has always been money-hungry, we have never gone unsatisfied. We do not thirst for fine art with the parched throats who have nothing. We thirst for fine art because of its inherent value, not out of some desperate need. Separated from necessity only do we recognize true value.
Luxurious spending has always been synonymous with the purchasing of fine art. But when fine art become equity, and master strokes become mere dollars and cents, what are we left with? Is tomorrow the day when a Renoir is seen only for its liquidity? Is nothing in the art world sacred?
I hope my reader will not fault me for my class-derived POV. My point is simple, and, I think, valid. When the upper echelons purchase art, it is out of respect for the artist and the value of a piece. When the middle class, as this recent US News & World Report article points out, they do so as an investment for the future, with as much emotion and reverence with which one chooses a mutual fund. When beauty is stripped of art, what are we left with?
Art We in a Recession?
May 4, 2008
We’re in a recession, yes?
The art world seems hell-bent on rejecting this idea about as strongly as the Bush administration. Despite a diminishing scope of this season’s high-end art auctions, Reuters reveals that fine art prices are maintaining a characteristically steep price–defying murmurs of recession.
Russia and the Middle East are producing the international art world’s big spenders. With riches piling up in practically every Western nation besides the US, we’re seeing an influx of buyers with enough petty cash to stock up on fine art.
This season, sales are smaller. But the prices of individual works remain an all-time high. Rothko and Francis Bacon are garnering top dollar, and a $40 million Monet is nothing to sneeze at.
The art world is certainly not the bellwether for the status of the US economy, but it does point noticeably to the growing power of the super-wealthy. Their wealth, according to Reuters, has a great deal to do with oil money, and a bit to do with hedge fund affluence. A look at which economies are supporting these big spenders could illuminate even more the status of our economic times.
Just something to think about.
