5 ms·
But a symptom of what, exactly? It sounds like what he's doing is providing material support for artists (many of whom would not otherwise be able to pursue ar
by GabrielF00 12y ago
But a symptom of what, exactly?
It sounds like what he's doing is providing material support for artists (many of whom would not otherwise be able to pursue art full time) as well as connections to collectors. In exchange he buys up the art for very cheap.
I think they're making an argument that he's creating a lot of hype around these artists and that this creates a bubble for their work which bursts after a few years. Maybe that's a reasonable criticism, but it's not clear to me why someone whose work was very popular for a few years couldn't then parlay the connections that they've made and the lessons that they've learned into a reasonably successful career, even if the value of the work declines dramatically from the peak. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable deal to make, especially when you consider how incredibly hard it is for artists to get any kind of attention in the first place.
I'll admit that I really don't understand how the art world works, despite the fact that my Mom is a professional artist.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoSounds like YCombinator to me.
- brazzy 12y agoA symptom of a business where a large part of the monetary value is assigned to a small number of star producers, and this assigning is heavily influenced by a class of middlemen who are busily pretending, through social conventions and traditions, that the money is not important, since they profit greatly from the consumers' belief that the non-monetary aspects are the most important ones. Simchowitz is basically a "munchkin middleman" who blithely ignores said conventions and traditions and addresses a different class of consumers. edited in reaction to reply
- _delirium 12y agoBased on this article's description, I wouldn't say he's disintermediating it so much as differently intermediating it. It sounds like he's building up an interesting web of social and business conventions to position people as art-stars, cultivate investors in said art-stars' careers and works, cultivate "appreciators" who key on status signals he's inflecting certain artists with, etc. It's still ultimately a lot of a status and positioning game, trying to build someone up as a "major artist" in a way that a critical mass of critics and investors buy, while setting yourself up as the intermediary who controls access to this corner of the art world.
- gbhn 12y agoI'm certainly no art high roller, but my understanding is that the art world has a long history of patrons like this, who have eclectic tastes, large networks of trusting collectors, and an eye for the new. Everyone hates them, until eventually they build the Guggenheim museum and then everyone thinks they were awesome.
- dawnstra8 12y agoI definitely agree that this is a symptom of larger things. Although I'm not so sure about the munchkin remark.
- mc32 12y agoYeah, as you imply it's basically a symptom of how artificially constructed the price of much art is perhaps due to how artists and art pieces are assigned value --somewhat arbitrarily but with some relation to perceived relevance in art history. In other words much of its value not not so much intrinsic as manufactured. One only needs to look at Rhine II [1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
- ablanton 12y agoThe article is a little annoying in its portrayal of artist being completely unaware. A really good discussion broke out on Paddy Johnson's (artfcity) fb page where Simchowitz chimed in. I'm glad to see it on hn though ~ I think there are many analogues to the tech scene and many younger builders/hackers/engineers. I think it's a symptom of wildly speculative markets with potential major payoffs and few regulations.