Architecture of the Contemporary Art Market

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

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.

The "Nothing But" model of art and economy postulates that "the art market is no different from any other market," and that "aesthetic value," consequently, "is a form of economic value just as every other form of value is" (Velthius, 26). Bordieu elaborates a version of this model in which the economic value derived from successful participation in the art market derives, ironically, from the ability of participators to "deny" or "disavow" all economic interests as they deal in the art world (Velthius, 26). As Kahnweiler explains, "'In order to sell works of art by vanguard artists to the clients to whom they might reasonably expect to appeal, [...avant garde art dealers] had to eschew the range of commercial practices associated with establishments appealing to much larger markets.'" The dealer, then, "'maintained distinctiveness of his products by not advertising and by suggesting the elite character and intellectual self-sufficiency of the works of art he displayed'" (Velthius, 22-23). But, Velthius points out, "[i]t would be foolish...to take the art dealers' anti-commercial self-representations at face value. Instead, it could be argued that these self-representations enhance the pursuit of these interests" (Velthius, 23). Bordieu, who proposes an "economy of symbolic goods," in which "works of art...are at the same time a commodity and a symbolic object," suggests that it is precisely the degree of success in self-representation as a non-economic player that imbues a dealer with sufficient "symbolic capital," or name recognition, to "'consecrate' objects or persons" (such as the artists they work with), infuse them with cultural and institutional value, and derive monetary benefit from this consecration (Velthius, 26). Thus, "a disavowal of the economy," and the concomitant "accumulation of symbolic capital," is, in fact, "a sound economic strategy": The higher the dealer's reputation, which is determined by such accumulation, the more likely he or she is to be able to sell more pieces of art, and at higher prices (Velthius, 26).

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.
Olav Velthius, Author of "Talking Prices"

Pierre Bourdieu, Theorist of the "Economy of Symbolic Goods"
Picasso's Portrait of David-Henry Kahnweiler

Kimberly Ann Phoenix  

It is interesting that art dealers do not want to view themselves as businessman.  That somehow because they make money at what they do, the shear act of a monetary transaction cheapens the art.  Is it really so different from a clothing designer wanting to sell their clothing or a theatre selling tickets to the latest performance?  .Most people do a job because at some level they love what they are doing, artists are no different.  The love of painting, photography, or any other form of art should be shared and if someone wants to pay money for it great.  The idea of a Gallery having to separate the viewing from the buying seems a bit pretentious.  But the practice is alive and well, I found one here in New York City, the Silverman Gallery.  They have two galleries on 24^th street ground level were exhibits are held and one on 20^th 3^rd floor for smaller exhibits and open by appointment only.  This is the statement regarding the 24^th street space "The Bruce Silverstein Gallery's main location is a 5000 sft. street level exhibition space in the heart of the Chelsea Art District.  The gallery maintains an in-depth inventory of masterworks of the photographic medium and promotes long-standing relationships with museums, private collectors, art consultants and corporations from around the world. "We welcome both experienced and new collectors" (http://www.brucesilverstein.com/gallery.php).  The description of the 20^th street space "Contemporary works on display in the private viewing rooms are viewable upon appointment." (http://www.brucesilverstein.com/gallery.php)  Art is sold and people make money, most people know this fact, the idea that it needs to happen away from the public eye is interesting.  An artist needs to make a living and it selling what they are good at should be a place of pride.

24^th street gallery

20^th street 3^rd floor gallery

             The other part of this relationship is that between the gallery and an artist.  The Silverman Gallery has such a relationship with Randy West.  On his website it states that he is represented by the Silverman.  The Silverman Gallery has held several solo shows of his work.  There is a current showing of his work until September 2011.  Of course there is no way of knowing if there is a financial relationship that extends beyond the selling of work but given the history of the gallery/artist relationship there just might be. 

Tethered #1

Randy West