...
| Panel |
|---|
Vincent Anthony Falkiewicz Throughout Olav Velthius' essay he discusses numerous controversies within the art market. He attempts to show the controversial style of dealers, and their lack of interest in prices only when selling art; however, when purchasing and displaying their own art they are very aware of market value. The architecture of the art market is supported by a several factors, according to Velthius. Although neoclassical economists might argue "the dealer's discourse can be safely ignored" due to all markets following "universal economic principals" which claim each individual acts in his or her own self-interest, the author points out the social and cultural role involved in the art market. In fact, he proposes "markets are...cultural constelations," in that they represent the cultural interests of a society as well as anything else. In the example offered, although the dealer seems minimally concerned with prices, he becomes interested in the purchased and present market value of his own work to display his artistic competence. In this sense, we see how culture plays its part in "advocating the role of culture in economic life." The architecture of the art world is no different. It is supported by the role of culture in the art market. For example, artists would never stray "from the austere, white, spartanly funished spaces." Failure to properly display art in a setting like this would show the dealer's or auctioner's lack of understanding of the art world and the way it works. A specific example Velthius endorses, which was actually created by the 1980's economic sociologist Viviana Zelizer is "circuits of commerce." "Circuits of commerce" is a social economic theory which exclaims the trade of goods and services is strongly accompanied by "conversation, interchange, intercourse, and mutual shaping." Although as an economist I do not agree this is the case in all markets, I do believe this is the case for the art market. This idea strongly supports the architecture of it. It shows how monetary value in the art market exists mainly as a signifier of cultural relevance. As we see in the dealer's desire to coexist between the artist and purchaser, those involved in these types of transaction are more interested in the appreciation of the art, and paying for that appreciation. I relate this somewhat to people giving offerings at church. If you asked someone in church why they paid 10 dollars when everyone else is paying a single dollar, they are most likely to say something that shows how culturally relevant religion is in their life. They most likely don't even feel like they're paying a COST for anything, they are simply offering what is rightfully deserved for their appreciation. The same is true for the art market. It's architecture is structured around the love of art, rather than the cost of it. This causes the "circuits of commerce" theory to hold true, and to be a backbone of the art market. The pictures displayed show the strong conversational aspect of art dealing. Prices are negotiated through cultural and social means more often than typical economic ones such as "supply and demand." The following links show the importance of understanding the art market and its structure when buying art. As Velthius points out, there is so much cultural competence involved in the purchase of art one must be very apt in order to purchase art at the correct price. http://www.artbusiness.com/basynop.html http://faso.com/fineartviews/11439/negotiating-with-art-galleries |
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
Erica Gilbert-Levin In his essay "Talking Points: the Symbolic Meaning of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art," Olav Velthius highlights the integral role of culture and art in economic dynamics, arguing that even prices do not exist arbitrarily or in a vacuum but rather are "embedded in webs of meaning," both affected by and, in turn, affecting the cultural and institutional roles of various elements of the art market, including, for instance, the players involved, such as art dealers and artists, and the value placed upon works of art. He offers two competing models for the explication of pricing in the art market: "Hostile Worlds" and "Nothing But." Although Velthius ultimately dismisses both theories as overly reductive, maintaining that they miss the point, for "the crucial question is not if artworks are commodified, but instead how commodification takes place" (Velthius, 28), I found Boudieu's version of the "Nothing But" theory particularly instructive and glimpse possible answers, or the beginnings of answers, to the question Velthius poses.
We can see this dynamic at work in the architectural design of contemporary avant-garde galleries. Art is separated, literally, from economic activities within these spaces: The barren, spare Front Room contains the art work, which is expected to speak for itself, its quality necessitating no advertisement outside or ornamentation within. The Back Room of the gallery is where economic exchanges take place. Dealers, such as the one Velthius interviewed in the beginning of his essay, are decisive and insistent in their alignment with the values of the Front Room. They claim disinterest in the activities of the Back Room and insist that they are not in the business to make money but for the sheer love of art. They are committed to aesthetic quality, not to profits – as though garnering a reputation for providing art work of aesthetic quality would not lead to economic payoff. In fact, Boudieu would argue, it is indeed the very extent to which a dealer succeeds at separating himself from the Back Room of his own gallery and at aligning himself with the purity and sacredness of the Front Room that he is able to derive economic benefit from his dealings in the art market. |
...