On the Web: March 2005 Archives

Erik's got an interesting post about editioned works (as many photogaphs are sold) over at "View from the Edge...", specifically about the effects of editions that get "broken", that is when the edition limit is subsequently expanded or a new edition of a work is created in a different size. The whole area of price setting in the arts is fascinating to me. I'd have to do a little research on pricing trends (actually, a lot of research), but I believe broken editions probably have limited impact on the long term value of previously sold editions. It's possible that the very fact that an edition is broken proves the popularity of the work and artist, resulting in an increase in market value for the original production run. Of course, none of this affects the intrinsic artistic value of the piece.

Check out this excellent post (excellent as in "I agree") over at Mark Vallen's "Art for a Change", triggered by a recent Los Angeles panel discussion entitled "Whither Arts Journalism in LA?". While I would probably disagree with Vallen about pretty much everything else he believes, I do agree that "people have not abandoned art because they are stupid… they have abandoned it because art has become stupid." There was a time when art had a functional purpose in people's lives, but somewhere in the past century art became inwardly focused and self-obsessed, a world unto itself - the art world.

Gallerist Caryn Coleman, one of the panel participants, has responded on her blog, art.blogging.la.

If you're interested in either the Diane Arbus or Larry Clark retrospectives currently in town (at the Met and ICP respectively), you might want to peruse John Perreault's latest post of over Artopia. He uses the two shows as examples in a collection of observations on various aspects of photography, eventually digressing into a psuedo-zen affirmation: "It is ultimately not what you are looking at that is important, but the looking itself." If that were true, then a quick scan through the latest J. Crew catalog would be as rewarding as any gallery visit.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Roger Fenton show coming to the Met in May. Via SilverSilicon.com, Slate has posted a photo essay on Fenton. Slate seems to be doing more of these clunky "slideshow" essays of late.

A few odds and ends to post:

The Met has (finally) acquired the Gilman Paper Company's massive photo collection. The NY Times' reports its value at an estimated $100 million. Director de Montebello describes the Met's 19th C. collection as now "untouchable". Even more reason that the Met is my preferred photo museum in town. The Diane Arbus retrospective has opened there, reviewed by Peter Schjeldahl in The New Yorker and though I'm vaguely disinterested in Arbus and this show, I'll probably go anyway.

Fraser Gallery's "DC Art News" is hyping its Lida Moser show in a nice post. The show opens tomorrow.

I ran across this Business Week article awhile back about art-based investment funds. Basically you dump a huge pile of money into these funds, have to hold them for 10 years or so minimum, and in some cases get the right to borrow or rent the art in the fund. treating art as pure investment rubs me the wrong way, but the issues of setting prices and market transparency are interesting. Felix Salmon's "A Broken Market" (via From the Floor) brought it back to mind.

Vince Aletti has posted his review of "First Seen", a collection of early portraits from around the world being shown at the Dahesh Museum of Art through May 1. (I say "posted", as if the Village Voice was just another blog. Weird.) I am a big fan of early photography, and the Dahesh's curatoral sensibilities, so I'm eager to see this show should I get a chance. Aletti's conclusion:

Because the nearly 250 images gathered here come from an important private collection, they are uncommonly good (with fine examples by Felice Beato, Roger Fenton, Hill and Adamson, Charles Nègre, and other key figures) and instructively wide-ranging. It's useful to see George Sand, in her natty suit and tie, in the same space with a helmeted samurai, a group of Turkish street peddlers, and a pair of recumbent opium smokers. Exoticism is in the eye of the beholder.

The Village Voice has posted its Spring Photo Preview of gallery shows. Lots of great stuff is on the way, it appears. Kicking off this month are a show by Stephen Shore and the Diane Arbus retrospective at the Met. Others of interest are Larry Burrows, Thomas Struth, Gregory Crewdson and Tina Barney, among others.

A couple of years ago I was involved in a silly but heated debate in an online forum about what constituted art. (Few topics are as pointless as this one yet there is no end to people willing to debate it.) Some guy was insisting that a photo couldn't be art unless a human being made the decision to trigger the shutter. The example in question was whether a camera attached to a dog's neck, its shutter tripping randomly, could produce art. The post flatly stated that this was definitely not art. In May, Sam Easterson will try to prove that guy wrong.