Posting temporarily disabled due to a rather aggressive spambot...
Jerry Saltz keeps bitching about how commercialized the art world is
.......but never writes about anyone outside of the top 1%.
|Occupy!||Dec. 1, 2012, 5:40 p.m.|
|He's been getting artist to make copies of Richter paintings for around $100 to prove a point but is the point that artist are easily taken advantage of or that some paintings are overpriced? It could very well be both.||Dec. 1, 2012, 5:43 p.m.|
|He's not talking about the artists, he is talking about art business itself, like how the artists are treated and selected. This has nothing to do with the artists! Everything is more commercial now. It's just how our society works. What would a non-commercial art world even look like?||Dec. 1, 2012, 5:45 p.m.|
|Hmmm... a non-commercial art world would be like a world without religion. There's nothing wrong with a commercial art world but there is something wrong with the taste hierarchy as it is now.||Dec. 1, 2012, 5:52 p.m.|
|Word.||Dec. 1, 2012, 11:44 p.m.|
|He's incredibly active in Facebook discussions, where he rages against enormous prices, the auction house circus, and all the other ludicrous art world stuff. But you're right, when he writes it's always about the same galleries and the same artists, who are bought by the same collectors.||Dec. 4, 2012, 9:28 p.m.|
What's interesting is to analyze how Jerry Saltz PARTICIPATES in the commercialization process: in the investor model of art collecting, art is purchased on the basis of future museum inclusion (skyrocketing its value)--well what role do you think critics play in that chain of events *hint* *nudge*?
||Dec. 4, 2012, 9:39 p.m.|