5 ms·

What we lose when curating follows the money

lbotos 3y ago
In contrast, I just went to New Haven CT for the pizza, and stumbled into the Yale art gallery. I didn't expect much but 3rd floor, Modern and Contemporary Art and Design was expertly curated. https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/52939 https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/52939 All of the pieces in the room where this piece were all played with light in fascinating ways and the layout sort of took you through a day. This piece linked was positioned at the end of the gallery into the next so as t o look like the light was spilling in from the next gallery itself. If you are in New Haven it's free and a great way to lose a few hours.
- wlesieutre 3y ago
  I remember seeing Do Ho Suh’s Boiler Room, London Studio there. Very cool piece. https://ocula.com/art-galleries/victoria-miro-gallery/artworks/do-ho-suh/boiler-room-london-studio/ https://ocula.com/art-galleries/victoria-miro-gallery/artwor... Across the street is the Yale Center for British Art which is also free, and worth a visit just to experience the building. https://thespaces.com/yale-center-british-art-reopens-khan/ https://thespaces.com/yale-center-british-art-reopens-khan/ And down the block from Arethusa Farm Dairy. It’s not free, but is some of the best ice cream you’ll ever have. https://www.arethusafarm.com/new-haven https://www.arethusafarm.com/new-haven
- musicale 3y ago
  > I just went to New Haven CT for the pizza That's what it's known for. Nice that there's apparently a university there as well. I think they play football with some other well-known schools.
  - musicale 3y ago
    Someone clearly hasn't tried New Haven pizza - it's very good.
yieldcrv 3y ago
I recently sold works from the belle époque era to raise some cash through the bear market and, aside from usual haggling, the high end gallery curators were scared that there was no interest in this era anymore, that all the collectors were 80 years old I told them that millenials and gen Z loooove art nouveau, theyre just not in your networks and dont have the money yet this was hard for them to understand, as they are also 70 and 80 years old and this aspect of the art world, social media virality with no associated indexing on google, has only recently occurred I would definitely say following the money has some folly because it doesnt really tap into all sentiment. money is influenced by crowd sentiment and if you inspire the crowd, the moneyed interests FOMO
- boppo1 3y ago
  How/Where did you sell them? I am one of the millennials you mentioned and would love to know where I can keep an eye out for this stuff once I can afford it.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    There are only a few fine art galleries, and there are even fewer cities that are fine art markets. I sold the belle epoque art nouveau works on park ave in nyc, but I originally found them in san francisco - which is not really a fine art market but has a couple galleries
    - boppo1 3y ago
      I’ve seen ‘galleries’ all over. How does one know if it’s really a fine art gallery or not? I have a pretty good eye as I’m a novice painter with a few years of old-style academic training under my belt (casts, nude models, etc). All I know of that I’d call mostly respectable are Maxwell-Alexander and Arcadia Contemporary. But they deal only in living painters.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        Honestly it’s about what other galleries think of them The key term here is provenance, how strong and reliable is proving the history of ownership if that gallery is involved, can they produce the prior provenance on demand I don’t know the best way to find that out from the outside. If you try to sell a piece you own you’ll find it very quickly, after you mention where you got it from
graphe 3y ago
>There are gains to be had from exhibiting private artwork in an internationally renowned institution; inclusion within a curated major exhibition lends it credibility and legitimacy, which can be added to an impressive provenance trail, making it attractive when put up for sale. We gain putting things that are "hidden gems" and telling people it's good, for prestige, and/or leading up to sales. Art collectors that care about money aren't usually art appreciators. It's just a slow version of bored apes.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
creer 3y ago
The article has fun roasting this specific exhibition but as usual the various entities are independent and follow their own agenda and are all satisfied. No deep plot needed. The museum loves to get along with rich private collections (which will donate money and art and will lend rare pieces on demand) and as a mission wants to host popular exhibitions. The directors score big in their network and get closer to rich collectors and add this feat to their resume. The public gets rarely seen pieces (for a steep fee in this case.) The museum will at least break even on the cost of running the thing. Insurance was needed and that's expensive and the government pitched in. The owners of the art fulfill their public-good objective AND increase the value all these pieces - now still better known. Scholarship got the short end of the stick - nobody on this crew depended on that too much. Everyone else is happy enough. The question, rather buried, is that the show uses a scarce resource: six months of exhibition space at a major museum. Was this really the best the museum could do for the public in that time? On balance, because of so many major works, perhaps it was! But either actual curators couldn't be convinced (they would have little say as to which art), or the directors felt they could add a round of curation to their resume and didn't need to share credit. They might have had good success asking various art critics to write something to hang in each room (for the prestige or for money). There is no doubt that the show is still useful to the public. Some private collections hold many big name art pieces and do not (yet) have a space of their own to display them. If you care greatly about one of these artists - or that period - you will pay to visit. This will be your only chance to ever see some works. If you care about art in general, you will be sorely tempted - for that single reason. You have heard of all these works and you finally get a chance to see a pile of them. In both cases, let's be clear: curation is NOT relevant. Quantity is sufficient (quantity of these well known pieces). If you care about well-known art, when you are in Los Angeles, you visit the Broad. You have to score a time slot (it's free) but this private collection "has everything". It stands out: a private collection of mostly big-shot art that has a permanent exhibition space of its own (an extravagant half city block in the middle of downtown.)
- derbOac 3y ago
  There's an outdoor park in the region with what was a well-loved area — a common place to get married, beautiful views. Several years ago there was a major donation and suddenly this area — prime park topography — was filled haphazardly with modern sculptures. The aesthetics of the place were totally destroyed, and obviously because of this donor. It wasn't even so much that the sculptures are ugly, it's that putting them there in particular was completely nonsensical. It would be sort of like if someone donated billions of dollars to the NPS in the US and then they just filled the national mall with contemporary abstract outdoor sculptures. The exhibit that's the focus of this article will pass and you're right that in the grand scheme of things it's probably inconsequential. Museums show private collections all the time. But to me the underlying concerns were very important and relevant — the exhibit seemed to be incoherent, the real reason for the exhibit is kind of buried, basically a poor exhibit is happening because of money and there's an attempt to conceal it so as to not anger the donor. There are certain situations where all of that becomes more consequential or long lasting, as in permanent outdoor sculpture exhibits, or if the exhibit also has some controversial outcome.
kazinator 3y ago
> Only one room out of seven, containing a single example, fulfills the exhibition’s conceit (or the first sentence, anyway). Jeff Wall’s “A Sudden Gust of Wind (After Hokusai)” You can get a sudden gust of wind after hakusai, too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_cabbage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_cabbage
ganzuul 3y ago
Friedrich Nietzsche — 'We have art in order not to die of the truth.' When an artist captures a qualia in a medium we experience an alternative truth, more potent than death. Qualia are hints at the existence of eternity. An art exhibition has the potential to be a part of a peak experience in someone's life. We currently speak so much about the rights of artists that it seems we are neglecting these important duties, as keepers of the gate.

In contrast, I just went to New Haven CT for the pizza, and stumbled into the Yale art gallery. I didn't expect much but 3rd floor, Modern and Contemporary Art and Design was expertly curated. https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/52939 https://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/52939 All of the pieces in the room where this piece were all played with light in fascinating ways and the layout sort of took you through a day. This piece linked was positioned at the end of the gallery into the next so as t o look like the light was spilling in from the next gallery itself. If you are in New Haven it's free and a great way to lose a few hours.

wlesieutre 3y ago
I remember seeing Do Ho Suh’s Boiler Room, London Studio there. Very cool piece. https://ocula.com/art-galleries/victoria-miro-gallery/artworks/do-ho-suh/boiler-room-london-studio/ https://ocula.com/art-galleries/victoria-miro-gallery/artwor... Across the street is the Yale Center for British Art which is also free, and worth a visit just to experience the building. https://thespaces.com/yale-center-british-art-reopens-khan/ https://thespaces.com/yale-center-british-art-reopens-khan/ And down the block from Arethusa Farm Dairy. It’s not free, but is some of the best ice cream you’ll ever have. https://www.arethusafarm.com/new-haven https://www.arethusafarm.com/new-haven
musicale 3y ago
> I just went to New Haven CT for the pizza That's what it's known for. Nice that there's apparently a university there as well. I think they play football with some other well-known schools.
- musicale 3y ago
  Someone clearly hasn't tried New Haven pizza - it's very good.

yieldcrv 3y ago

I recently sold works from the belle époque era to raise some cash through the bear market and, aside from usual haggling, the high end gallery curators were scared that there was no interest in this era anymore, that all the collectors were 80 years old I told them that millenials and gen Z loooove art nouveau, theyre just not in your networks and dont have the money yet this was hard for them to understand, as they are also 70 and 80 years old and this aspect of the art world, social media virality with no associated indexing on google, has only recently occurred I would definitely say following the money has some folly because it doesnt really tap into all sentiment. money is influenced by crowd sentiment and if you inspire the crowd, the moneyed interests FOMO

boppo1 3y ago
How/Where did you sell them? I am one of the millennials you mentioned and would love to know where I can keep an eye out for this stuff once I can afford it.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  There are only a few fine art galleries, and there are even fewer cities that are fine art markets. I sold the belle epoque art nouveau works on park ave in nyc, but I originally found them in san francisco - which is not really a fine art market but has a couple galleries
  - boppo1 3y ago
    I’ve seen ‘galleries’ all over. How does one know if it’s really a fine art gallery or not? I have a pretty good eye as I’m a novice painter with a few years of old-style academic training under my belt (casts, nude models, etc). All I know of that I’d call mostly respectable are Maxwell-Alexander and Arcadia Contemporary. But they deal only in living painters.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      Honestly it’s about what other galleries think of them The key term here is provenance, how strong and reliable is proving the history of ownership if that gallery is involved, can they produce the prior provenance on demand I don’t know the best way to find that out from the outside. If you try to sell a piece you own you’ll find it very quickly, after you mention where you got it from

graphe 3y ago

>There are gains to be had from exhibiting private artwork in an internationally renowned institution; inclusion within a curated major exhibition lends it credibility and legitimacy, which can be added to an impressive provenance trail, making it attractive when put up for sale. We gain putting things that are "hidden gems" and telling people it's good, for prestige, and/or leading up to sales. Art collectors that care about money aren't usually art appreciators. It's just a slow version of bored apes.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

creer 3y ago

The article has fun roasting this specific exhibition but as usual the various entities are independent and follow their own agenda and are all satisfied. No deep plot needed. The museum loves to get along with rich private collections (which will donate money and art and will lend rare pieces on demand) and as a mission wants to host popular exhibitions. The directors score big in their network and get closer to rich collectors and add this feat to their resume. The public gets rarely seen pieces (for a steep fee in this case.) The museum will at least break even on the cost of running the thing. Insurance was needed and that's expensive and the government pitched in. The owners of the art fulfill their public-good objective AND increase the value all these pieces - now still better known. Scholarship got the short end of the stick - nobody on this crew depended on that too much. Everyone else is happy enough. The question, rather buried, is that the show uses a scarce resource: six months of exhibition space at a major museum. Was this really the best the museum could do for the public in that time? On balance, because of so many major works, perhaps it was! But either actual curators couldn't be convinced (they would have little say as to which art), or the directors felt they could add a round of curation to their resume and didn't need to share credit. They might have had good success asking various art critics to write something to hang in each room (for the prestige or for money). There is no doubt that the show is still useful to the public. Some private collections hold many big name art pieces and do not (yet) have a space of their own to display them. If you care greatly about one of these artists - or that period - you will pay to visit. This will be your only chance to ever see some works. If you care about art in general, you will be sorely tempted - for that single reason. You have heard of all these works and you finally get a chance to see a pile of them. In both cases, let's be clear: curation is NOT relevant. Quantity is sufficient (quantity of these well known pieces). If you care about well-known art, when you are in Los Angeles, you visit the Broad. You have to score a time slot (it's free) but this private collection "has everything". It stands out: a private collection of mostly big-shot art that has a permanent exhibition space of its own (an extravagant half city block in the middle of downtown.)

derbOac 3y ago
There's an outdoor park in the region with what was a well-loved area — a common place to get married, beautiful views. Several years ago there was a major donation and suddenly this area — prime park topography — was filled haphazardly with modern sculptures. The aesthetics of the place were totally destroyed, and obviously because of this donor. It wasn't even so much that the sculptures are ugly, it's that putting them there in particular was completely nonsensical. It would be sort of like if someone donated billions of dollars to the NPS in the US and then they just filled the national mall with contemporary abstract outdoor sculptures. The exhibit that's the focus of this article will pass and you're right that in the grand scheme of things it's probably inconsequential. Museums show private collections all the time. But to me the underlying concerns were very important and relevant — the exhibit seemed to be incoherent, the real reason for the exhibit is kind of buried, basically a poor exhibit is happening because of money and there's an attempt to conceal it so as to not anger the donor. There are certain situations where all of that becomes more consequential or long lasting, as in permanent outdoor sculpture exhibits, or if the exhibit also has some controversial outcome.

kazinator 3y ago

> Only one room out of seven, containing a single example, fulfills the exhibition’s conceit (or the first sentence, anyway). Jeff Wall’s “A Sudden Gust of Wind (After Hokusai)” You can get a sudden gust of wind after hakusai, too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_cabbage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_cabbage

ganzuul 3y ago

Friedrich Nietzsche — 'We have art in order not to die of the truth.' When an artist captures a qualia in a medium we experience an alternative truth, more potent than death. Qualia are hints at the existence of eternity. An art exhibition has the potential to be a part of a peak experience in someone's life. We currently speak so much about the rights of artists that it seems we are neglecting these important duties, as keepers of the gate.