In Beyond the Dualistic Art/ Market Model, Isabelle Graw analyses the intrinsic link between art and the art market, arguing that they are not irreconcilably opposite (p.81). Exemplifying this she presents a discussion of the 'successful artist' as the ubiquitous model of the ultimate entrepreneurial self and its absorption by the mainstream commercial sector as the blueprint for the perfect creative worker (p.113).
This model evokes an image of the profitable artist as a kind of heroic, exceptional being who is so terribly clever they can succeed as a radical individual, a non-conformist, a person who can operate outside the regulations of the commercial sector, avoiding the punching of the clock of working for the man, yet achieving capital independence in an increasingly capitalist society.
It suggests someone who is in complete control of their productivity, career choices and market destination. It's an appealing, almost romantic picture (which I would love to believe in!), however, it seems quite incomplete and naïve in so far as it is perceived by the mainstream sector. Ironically the picture fails to recognise that such success is concurrently, partly dependent on the multitude of variables and trends of commercial art-market, media and so forth that both consumes and reflects it. By varying degrees, talent aside, often those few who do make it commercially are either savvy at conforming to certain sectors, have lucky encounters or else once in the market experience a kind of hijacking to one degree or another by the commercial market itself -- which acts also as an agent to clientele and media and may not necessarily always reflect the artists' intellectual intentions nor representation. For example, what is to stop the latest buyers agreeing to interior shoots (including their art collection) for the latest Home and Garden magazine?
It raises the question of how much freedom and autonomy the artist, once relying on the commercial market, really has over their production and/or representation? Many artists will admit to making 'sellers' along with works they find more interesting, yet less saleable; that they may have to agree to and/or align themselves with scenarios which make them dollars, but possibly compromise their intentions or politics.
It seems that by varying degrees once an artist is 'on the market' and has a buying audience, he or she requires inclusion by it to live and to continue practicing, inevitably, they are also dependent and hence vulnerable to its influence of whims of inclusion/ exclusion, trends and media which are ultimately making them successful. The stakes are raised by financial success, therefore autonomy and flexibility of practice can potentially be limited by it. It's a pot-holed road to navigate and suggests just how integrated the art and its art market are. When I think of the money-art market I have to agree with Graw's remark: “it seems the times when artistic production offered a counter image to the world of labour seem to be well and truly over”(p.112).
No comments:
Post a Comment