Issue 15 - Pdf Ctrl+P - CTRL+P: a journal of contemporary art

amidst such utopic conditions as full disclosure (who is collecting what and why should
they be inhibiting themselves from specific venues for valuation—exhibit programming,
judging, etc.) and a seamless information system that allows contending ideas to get to
the people who need to hear and digest them most. Leung speaks of how art is ‘rudderless’
particularly in the ideal world where the ultimate arbiters would be the makers of art
themselves who might in fact choose to be intractable. But hope floats or all artmaking
would cease. Thus the only tenable way to keep the artworld honest would be if all agents
would enter into the fray, boldly if not inerrantly speak rather than succumb to merely
working out of each other’s comfy and self-interested nests. There are no pat answers
but at least attempting to journey toward them is genuine gain.
irene s. leung
What Does “Recovery” Look Like
in the Art World? Or Surviving
the Next Art Market Bubble
News about General Motors re-emerging out of bankruptcy in just one month sent all
the media pundits scrambling for words. With 27,000 fewer employees and 13 fewer
car plants, it somehow acquired a new sheen—“smaller, leaner, tougher.” I for one, feel
that we are all our own individual GM companies—we have become leaner and tougher
through the hard times. But is there a comparable example in the art world?
With the overnight vanishing of wealth and the near-collapse of the credit markets,
some, like Holland Cotter, art critic of the New York Times, breathed a sigh of relief that
artists are once again left alone to make art rather than being picked over by “cadres
of public relations specialists” (i.e. the critics, curators, editors, publishers and career
theorists) driven by dealers, brokers, advisers, financiers, lawyers and…event planners. 1
Granted, the art world has not and will probably never embrace speculative investment.
But surely some of us would miss the frequent art fairs and biennales. Yet who is to say
when the stock market eventually rebounds to irrational exuberance, that the critics,
collectors, financiers, and dealers won’t contrive to create the next art market bubble?
Which art works would become the darling of the market? Which country would be
the hotbed of new talents? Who will be the new investors willing to inflate the next art
market bubble?
Given that everyone seems to be waiting for a sign to see where the wind blows, the
key question is not so much about how to do away with market agents because speculators
and investors are here to stay, but how art world depends on its rich patrons and has
worked hard to influence what they think and how they invest. We are not speaking of
having a Cosimo de’ Medici, but the art world has depended on the collectors, donors,
and corporations to keep it alive. What has been missing is a robust debate about monetization
– where does art practice intersect with money? Art needs an account balance
sheet because art is livelihood. Art is also a subsidy because the art market only supports
a small percentage of artists very well while others do not receive much.
The editors of this issue of Ctrl+P have rightly pointed out the interconnectedness
of ‘art world’ and the ‘art market.’ One simply cannot exist without the other, yet the art
market and the art world play by very different rules and thrive on different stimulants. As
artists and arts professionals, we seem to always be on the defensive, constantly justifying
the role of arts in society. Why must the arts be seen as expendable as corporate jets
in times of financial crises? Why are the utilities of arts constantly being questioned, as
opposed to, say, Math and sciences? On the other hand, the mantra of “art for arts sake”
actually undermines the extraordinarily diverse and complex reasons why we make art
and pay for the arts; it denies the social, religious and political functions that the arts
serve in human history and continues to do so.
Ctrl+P September 2009