Thank you again, Carter, for another "Emperor has no clothes" moment: "According to the conventional wisdom, the whole history of European painting since Michelangelo has been aiming toward—indeed has found its culmination—in Johns, Rauschenberg, and Stella. This is an idea so dumb it’s hard to know what to compare it to." Sales patter, indeed! 🙌🏽
For the record here in the sub-stack, I would like to summarize the comments below-
"So, the privatized Vasari Corridor was a model for the modern archives of Fine Art, by means of democratic tax policies."
There are many points of view and insights into the effect of money and finance upon Art and practicing Artists.
There seems to be a RESOLUTION over time, sometimes centuries, concerning the values of Art, regardless and despite monies. These values arrive after long examinations and discussions; Connoisseurship is slow and real.
The result is that Fine Art goes into the public trust, i.e., international museums that exchange those valuable works. Whatever propelled or inhibited any work, the resolution of long evaluations yields values into our public trust. The Vasari Corridor is now the Uffizi Gallery, belonging to the People of Italy.
My favorite story concerning the effect of finance on Fine Art is the Vasari Corridor, the second story bridge over the River Arno, in Florence. One of the Medici financiers became annoyed that he had to walk through the fishmongers on the bridge to get to his palatial offices on the other side of the River, so he commissioned Giorgio Vasari to build a second level, 1565. Then, the Medici made it a private passage filled with their financed collections, thereby, perfectly segregated from the populace.
Yet, look at the turn of events in tax based democracies: While the Medici and Baroque Nobility did not have to face taxes on ownership of art works or taxation on their properties( they had other tithes, requirements, such as death in war ), modern financiers face the estate taxation dilemma. Most choose to donate to museums those works whose price run-up benefits their estate bottom line the most.
So, the privatized Vasari Corridor was a model for the modern archives of Fine Art, by means of democratic tax policies.
The fishmongers get their revenge on the Medici , four centuries later.
My meaning is that financing art and culture, money propelling fine art pricing, is not all bad or corrupting necessarily or absolutely.
Rather, in my view, the money factor is distinct or tangential to the values of fine art and culture generally. The inherent meanings, those intended by the makers, plus the ones perceived by viewers, create a swirl of conversations and interpretations. Following generations see other levels. The enrichment of values expand.
Wonderfully, neither the finance nor the authoritative opinions of the time seem to forecast the future. Some of that 'highest at auction' goes to the basement storage (Bouguereau ), while the rural primitives sit center gallery (Rousseau ). And, visa versa too; many keen gallery-goers return home saying , "damn, just give me a Monet !".
To quote a Poet Critic we all know : " it's more complex ".
Great article and very insightful! Having had a front row seat for 50 + years, I think I can rightfully say that when the "Hedge Fund" guys discovered that art brings a greater return than the market that put handcuffs on artists as they try to evolve, Pollock is a great example.
A prophetic definition of the Consumer Orthodoxy that now dominates us.
How much does an artist censor of his/her creative impulses so as to comply with the rules of marketing product recognition?
You make an interesting point that the European to American art scenario has gone straight to the dollar.
Thank you again, Carter, for another "Emperor has no clothes" moment: "According to the conventional wisdom, the whole history of European painting since Michelangelo has been aiming toward—indeed has found its culmination—in Johns, Rauschenberg, and Stella. This is an idea so dumb it’s hard to know what to compare it to." Sales patter, indeed! 🙌🏽
For the record here in the sub-stack, I would like to summarize the comments below-
"So, the privatized Vasari Corridor was a model for the modern archives of Fine Art, by means of democratic tax policies."
There are many points of view and insights into the effect of money and finance upon Art and practicing Artists.
There seems to be a RESOLUTION over time, sometimes centuries, concerning the values of Art, regardless and despite monies. These values arrive after long examinations and discussions; Connoisseurship is slow and real.
The result is that Fine Art goes into the public trust, i.e., international museums that exchange those valuable works. Whatever propelled or inhibited any work, the resolution of long evaluations yields values into our public trust. The Vasari Corridor is now the Uffizi Gallery, belonging to the People of Italy.
My favorite story concerning the effect of finance on Fine Art is the Vasari Corridor, the second story bridge over the River Arno, in Florence. One of the Medici financiers became annoyed that he had to walk through the fishmongers on the bridge to get to his palatial offices on the other side of the River, so he commissioned Giorgio Vasari to build a second level, 1565. Then, the Medici made it a private passage filled with their financed collections, thereby, perfectly segregated from the populace.
Yet, look at the turn of events in tax based democracies: While the Medici and Baroque Nobility did not have to face taxes on ownership of art works or taxation on their properties( they had other tithes, requirements, such as death in war ), modern financiers face the estate taxation dilemma. Most choose to donate to museums those works whose price run-up benefits their estate bottom line the most.
So, the privatized Vasari Corridor was a model for the modern archives of Fine Art, by means of democratic tax policies.
The fishmongers get their revenge on the Medici , four centuries later.
My meaning is that financing art and culture, money propelling fine art pricing, is not all bad or corrupting necessarily or absolutely.
Rather, in my view, the money factor is distinct or tangential to the values of fine art and culture generally. The inherent meanings, those intended by the makers, plus the ones perceived by viewers, create a swirl of conversations and interpretations. Following generations see other levels. The enrichment of values expand.
Wonderfully, neither the finance nor the authoritative opinions of the time seem to forecast the future. Some of that 'highest at auction' goes to the basement storage (Bouguereau ), while the rural primitives sit center gallery (Rousseau ). And, visa versa too; many keen gallery-goers return home saying , "damn, just give me a Monet !".
To quote a Poet Critic we all know : " it's more complex ".
Great article and very insightful! Having had a front row seat for 50 + years, I think I can rightfully say that when the "Hedge Fund" guys discovered that art brings a greater return than the market that put handcuffs on artists as they try to evolve, Pollock is a great example.
Money has always had a corrupting affect.