Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Share|
Speed is a synonym for velocity and the slang term for amphetamine, a drug
creating an ecstatic illusion of rapidity and efficacy. Money, which plays an
increasingly important role in the dynamics of the global art market, has a
similar effect. Money dynamizes and accelerates the art market -- not just
temporarily but structurally. What are the effects on competition? And how do
these affect art itself?
Structural Acceleration
Chris Dercon, the director of Tate Modern, put this development in a nutshell.
Today an artist has seven years to make his career. What has changed
since the days of the early avant-garde, when the career of an artist was a
matter of oeuvre, not a matter of time? What distinguishes the global
contemporary art market from its predecessor, the avant-garde art market
that led to success for the great artistic innovators of the 20th century? On
the face of it, the contemporary art market appears as a seamless
continuation of the avant-garde art market. The market participants are still
the same: artists produce, dealers sell, collectors buy, critics judge and
museums validate -- just to name the mayor players. Artistic innovation and
esthetic competition still seem to be the engine of market dynamics. But on
closer inspection it becomes apparent that the driving forces of the art
market have shifted almost inconceivably over the course of the last four
decades. Essentially this has to do with the increasing influence of a cultural
invention that is not only at the root of the capitalistic market system but also
the art market as well: money.
limited number of those art collectors whose passion, curiosity and pursuit for
art had allowed the avant-garde art market to evolve and flourish. Finally the
gates towards market expansion had been pushed open. In the following
decades, global financial changes took place, such as the collapse of the
Soviet regime, the globalization of the capitalistic market system, and the
deregulation of financial markets, which led to a dramatic increase in income
among the superwealthy, with the consequence that the art market was
flooded with ever-rising levels of liquidity. This development in turn led to the
expansion of the art market and the phenomenon of skyrocketing prices. The
digital revolution allowed the transfer of information in real-time and created
a new thrust of acceleration in art trading. These political economic and
technical factors made the art market more dynamic than ever before,
leading to more and to faster production, circulation and consumption of art.
New Collectors
As a result, the art market experienced a fundamental transformation from a
closed cycle of art lovers to a globally expanding industry. A new type of
collector entered the stage, often from the financial sector, and with an eye
on the profitability of art. Today the global market caters to the preferences of
the increasing number of these so-called high-net-worth-individuals from
Europe, the U.S., the B.R.I.C. countries and the Arab world, all of whom are
pursuing an increasingly globalized lifestyle that includes professionally
positioned art brands. Especially contemporary art -- formerly a hobby of a
few collectors and therefore not prohibitively expensive -- has become a
status symbol and a speculative investment promising gains both in terms of
social distinction and monetary profit. The worldwide turnover at art auctions,
now estimated at $30 billion, has tripled since the turn of the millennium,
with the market share of contemporary art rising steadily. Despite the
economic downturn, in 2010 art prices approached the level had reached in
2007, their historical peak.
Art and money used to be incompatible notions. Today they are mentioned in
the same breath: Art & Finance is a new business sector, art funds move
larger sums of money, curators gather with fund managers at Art & Finance
conferences and, perhaps most dramatic of all, the criteria for evaluating art
shift from artistic standards towards quantitative economic parameters.
Half a century after the introduction of the Times-Sothebys Art Index, such
rankings and indexes have become widely accepted instruments for the
evaluation of artistic success. As they are used as indicators of artistic
quality, the assessment of quality has become a question of quantity. Simply
put, it has been reduced to three questions referring to the presence and the
prices of an artist: 1. With whom? 2. How often? 3. How expensive? These
questions examine aspects of the career of an artist which are not necessarily
related to the quality of his work: his social intelligence, the door through
which he happened to enter the art system -- which decides over initial
advantages which in turn may develop into uncatchable competitive
advantages -- and the preferences of curators and collectors as well as their
purchasing power. As self-fulfilling prophecies, art indexes and art rankings
tend to accelerate existing trends -- and they reinforce the tendency of the
art market to concentrate demand on a few star artists.
Concentration on Winners
More growth, more supply, more demand. More of everything for everybody?
Does the rising tide lift all boats? It does not, and for a reason the art market
shares with sports, entertainment and a growing number of other markets.
The art market is a so-called winner-take-all market. Its main feature is an
enormous price differential with marginal differences in performance and
quality. Even though barely perceptible or even non-existent, these
differences spell the difference between success and failure. This structure
leads to an increasing gap between a tiny top price segment and a huge low
price segment. It also explains the seeming paradox why the market for
contemporary art -- despite its expansion and its growing potential for the
funding, distribution and production of art -- continues to create poverty.
The art market expands and the idea of art as investment draws further
consumers -- collectors -- and hence further producers -- artists -- into the
market. As the liquidity flooding the art market is also on the prowl for profit,
it furthers the concentration on that small percent of artists whose work is
perceived to promise price increases. Consequently, the race for economic
success rivals with artistic competition, which focuses on qualities which
ultimately matter in art, such as depth, expression and the production of
meaning.
Global Art
Consciousness shapes culture and culture shapes the market. In turn the
market influences culture and culture influences our consciousness. A
structurally accelerated art market changes not only how art is produced,
marketed, valuated and selected, but also how it is perceived. The
phenomenon of an ever-expanding art world and an ever-quickening
succession of artists, exhibitions, biennials, fairs and fashions leads to what
Jean-Jacques Rousseau described in 1761 in his novel Julie, or the New
Heloise, I drift from one fancy to the next. . . . and there is not one day on
which I can know what I will love on the next. Drugs can be dangerous.
Speed not only creates an ecstatic high, it also leads to an accelerated
burnout. Similarly the acceleration of the art market and its transformation
into an increasingly money-driven business may lead to a burnout of those
resources upon which the art market thrives: on art as art, and on the vision,
creativity, expressiveness and bravado of the artists who create it. In the light
of this development it is paramount to keep in mind that Art is Art. And
everything else is everything else. To perceive the intrinsic value of art
happens to require a resource which has become the rarest and the greatest
luxury in a market driven by speed: leisure, contemplation, time. At this point
one realizes: time is not money.
PIROSCHKA DOSSI is a critic and curator. This text, which first appeared in
Artnet.de, is a revised and shortened version of a talk delivered at the
conference Money Cultures at the Zrcher Hochschule der Knste, Feb. 24,
2012.