Art is Bitten by Shark

I read the news today, oh boy… On the cover of the USA Today insert in my newspaper was a curious article with the headline: Record sums for artwork – Most expensive paintings known to be sold (in millions). In a gold frame with a little price tag, read the following:

“Nafea faa Ipoipo (will you marry me) Paul Gauguin $300 Sold: 2015

“The Card Players” Paul Cezanne $250 Sold: 2011

“Le Reve (the dream) Pablo Picasso $150 Sold: 2013

Two thoughts sprang to mind. Firstly, how do you justify these prices? And secondly, I need to change my name to Paul. There’s a pattern here, the top 3 most expensive paintings were all painted by men named Paul (Pablo is Spanish for Paul). Being named Paul must be the secret to getting the big bucks. Now, how can these prices be explained? And, what are the forces surrounding the paying of enormous sums for art today?

Let’s forget about the prices for Impressionists paintings for this post. Instead, let’s focus on contemporary art? Forgive me, but I am going to pick on British artist Damien Hirst to symbolize a sizable segment of the art world today. Damien Hirst’s career started with the now famous shark immersed in formaldehyde. It was the result of a £50,000 commission from Charles Saatchi in which Hirst was allowed to do what he wanted. Hirst simply hired people to catch the shark and put it in the fabricated tank. Later, there was a bit of a setback when a fin fell off, the liquid went murky and the shark turned green and wrinkled. No problem. Saatchi had his curators skin it, get rid of the decomposing body and stretch the skin over a fiberglass mold. Then he sold it to an American collector for around $12 million. 

Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991

Is this folly or am I unable to see great art that is worth millions? A clue to answering this vexing question might be found in the 1837 short tale by Hans Christian Andersen – The Emperor’s New Clothes. Take a minute and read it, you won't be disappointed.

http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

This short story is both wonderful and brilliant! It is about status, symbolism, and their connection to art (fine clothes in this case); the ego and desire; genius con-men; belief in magic (superstition); self doubt and the preservation of power; the insight of the pure of heart; and the inability to change in the face of facts. As you know, in the story the Emperor is obsessed with clothes and wants nothing better than to show them off at every opportunity. It might be said that clothing became his identity and he used it to symbolize good taste, wealth and power. This made him venerable. One day two swindlers in the guise of weavers came to town. “…they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.” Perfect! The Emperor paid them an obscene amount of money and the “weavers” went to work spinning air. (Isn't spin art sort of the same thing?)

Damien Hirst with one of his spin paintings. Before I was aware of Hirst's spin art, I used to use carnival spin art as an illustration of how easy it is to get seduced just by technique rather than balancing it with spirit, content and form. 

No doubt the spin technique can produce beautiful visual results but its value should be questioned. 

Back to the story. Curious as to the weaver’s progress but fearing his own exposure the Emperor thought, “I'll send my honest old minister to the weavers,… He'll be the best one to tell me how the material looks, for he's a sensible man and no one does his duty better.” When the most trustworthy and truthful minister saw nothing he was filled with self doubt and despair but responded, “Oh, it's beautiful -it's enchanting… Such a pattern, what colors!" The minister sounds like he could sell art. 

Are there swindlers in the art world selling works at prices not commensurate to there true value? Many people feel there are. If we follow the story we find that the "weavers" needed unwitting accomplices to work their deception. Trustworthy ministers went along with the scam, albeit without evil intent. In the art world, are there counterparts? Are some contemporary artists and powerful gallery owners the new weavers come to town? Do museums, art schools, magazines, and even some critics react like the Emperor’s ministers? In today’s crazy art environment, are art institutions like accomplices may be full of self doubt – fearful that they are unable to recognize an important new art form when it comes along. Does their acceptance of almost any new thing reflect today's art culture? More important, are they influenced by powerful art dealers?

It was Charles Saatchi, the gallery owner, who funded Damien Hirst’s shark project and help make his career. The relationship began after he saw Hirst's A Thousand Years, consisting of a large glass case containing maggots and flies feeding on a rotting cow's head. Hirst had recently graduated from school and said, “I can’t wait to get into a position to make really bad art and get away with it. At the moment if I did certain things people would look at it, consider it and then say 'f off'. But after a while you can get away with things.” God help me! What kind of art is founded on this point of view? It is akin to the thief who shamelessly states, "there's nothing wrong with stealing, it's only wrong if you get caught." Intention and sincerity are everything in both art and life. Shouldn't we resist the temptation to devalue noble attributes when establishing the criteria for quality art?

In the story, it is assumed that everyone in the kingdom was immersed in a culture of superstition, for everyone at court whole-heartedly believed in the power of the magical fabric. Today, the world’s art culture seems to be closely related to the one in the story. It’s a culture where art quality is indefinable and where poison and nourishment have become indistinguishable. It’s a world where anything can be art, anyone can be an artist, and where artists are convinced they must out do one another by creating the most shocking art imaginable in order to succeed (To this end in 2003, Chinese artist Zhu Yu eats a stillborn baby as his art exhibition). The importance of artwork today seems to be measured by who can pay the most for it. The high price comes with an added benefit, because the more you pay, the more powerful the art’s status symbol becomes. Can there be any other explanation why a museum in Qatar just paid $300,000,000 for a Paul Gauguin?

Paul Gauguin, “Nafea faa Ipoipo (will you marry me) $300 million, 2015

Side note: Damien Hirst eventually bites the hand that fed him by saying of his patron, “I'm not Charles Saatchi's barrel-organ monkey ... He only recognizes art with his wallet ... he believes he can affect art values with buying power, and he still believes he can do it.” Isn’t Hirst revealing art world’s dirty secret as well as how he became the wealthiest living artist in the UK (worth £215 million in 2010). Who was it that set these prices that made him so rich? Who bought or displayed his "artwork?” Not all museums have embraced his work – one venue rejected his art for fear they would have to clean the vomit off the floor.

Is the artwork of today's shock artists knit to art institutions the equivalent of the Emperor’s new clothes? Some critics think so and even say so. I am inclined to agree to a degree. Do you think that the collectors and museums that bought Damien Hirst’s collection of dead animals in glass cases, spin art, and dots might feel naked and ashamed in the future? I don’t think so. Remember the end of Andersen’s story.

After the pure hearted child blurts out the truth and everyone realizes it, an amazing thing happens. “The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.” 

It amazes me that we have the capacity to lie to ourselves and can hold contradictory thoughts in our mind without feeling troubled by them. One study showed that only 1 in 50 people change their minds when presented with facts that disprove their beliefs. In the end, the Emperor and his attendants went forward “more proudly than ever” as if the truth of his nakedness and the folly of being conned had never been revealed. 

Our egos can be extremely strong when it comes to self-image. I am sorry, but I can’t help using Damien Hirst again to illustrate this point. By 2009 Hirst was now both rich and famous. He understood the art market. For some reason he actually decides to paint with his own hand. He selects The Wallace Collection, a museum renowned for its collection of old masters and 18^th century French furniture, as the venue to exhibit his paintings. He explains, “…My new work somehow feels like they belong here with other works and objects from other times.” Success can blur your view of yourself and your abilities. In his statement, Hirst is linking himself and his work with Rembrandt, Rubens, Titian, Hals and French master craftsmen! This can mean one or two things. First, it's a manifestation delusional hubris brought upon by fame and wealth. Comparable statements have been made by other famous artists – Jeff Koons and Walter Keane, are examples. In Keane’s case he continued to compare himself with the old masters after it was proven he couldn’t paint.

The second possibility could be that it is a deliberate marketing strategy referred to as “rub-off.” This is used when you conflate quality and status to your product by association. It also helps create products as status symbols. A recent Cadillac Escalade ad ‘Evolution of Indulgence’ uses this device wonderfully.

It portrays the conveyance of the rich and powerful throughout history – the pharaoh, an Indian raja, a 18^th century monarch and culminates with you in a Escalade. The message is: own a Cadillac, and you’ll ride like a king and have the status of the powerful! Hirst is basically doing the same thing by exhibiting his painting where the masters once hung. Quality by association. Good strategy but it quite didn’t work. The problem was that almost every art critic seemed to disapprove of his paintings. One said, “To try to be accurate: Hirst, as a painter, is at about the level of a not-very-promising, first-year art student.” However, you have to give Hirst credit for trying. And, I bet the poor reviews didn't stop the wealthy from getting out their check books.

Hirst at his exhibit at the Wallace Collection venue

In the end, Hirst got his personal wish: “to make really bad art and get away with it.” Are you O.K. with that? Or do you think we should seek a higher standard, where it's not about the artist but the art. Art that elevates the spirits of the viewer through the power of its content and not its cost.