Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Ethical Cost of High-Price Art

MELBOURNE – In New York last month, Christie’s sold $745 million worth of postwar and contemporary art, the highest total that it has ever reached in a single auction. Among the higher-priced works sold were paintings by Barnett Newman, Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, and Andy Warhol, each of which sold for more than $60 million. According to the New York Times, Asian collectors played a significant part in boosting prices.

No doubt some buyers regard their purchases as an investment, like stocks or real estate or gold bars. In that case, whether the price they paid was excessive or modest will depend on how much the market will be willing to pay for the work at some future date.

But if profit is not the motive, why would anyone want to pay tens of millions of dollars for works like these? They are not beautiful, nor do they display great artistic skill. They are not even unusual within the artists’ oeuvres. Do an image search for “Barnett Newman” and you will see many paintings with vertical color bars, usually divided by a thin line. Once Newman had an idea, it seems, he liked to work out all of the variations. Last month, someone bought one of those variations for $84 million. A small image of Marilyn Monroe by Andy Warhol – there are many of those, too – sold for $41 million.

Ten years ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York paid $45 million for a small Madonna and Child by Duccio. Subsequently, in The Life You Can Save, I wrote that there were better things that the donors who financed the purchase could have done with their money. I haven’t changed my mind about that, but the Met’s Madonna is beautifully executed and 700 years old. Duccio is a major figure who worked during a key transitional moment in the history of Western art, and few of his paintings have survived. None of that applies to Newman or Warhol.

Perhaps, though, the importance of postwar art lies in its ability to challenge our ideas. That view was firmly expressed by Jeff Koons, one of the artists whose work was on sale at Christie’s. In a 1987 interview with a group of art critics, Koons referred to the work that was sold last month, calling it “the ‘Jim Beam’ work.” Koons had exhibited this piece – an oversize, stainless steel toy train filled with bourbon – in an exhibition called “Luxury and Degradation,” that, according to the New York Times, examined “shallowness, excess and the dangers of luxury in the high-flying 1980s.”

In the interview, Koons said that the Jim Beam work “used the metaphors of luxury to define class structure.” The critic Helena Kontova then asked him how his “socio-political intention” related to the politics of then-President Ronald Reagan. Koons answered: “With Reaganism, social mobility is collapsing, and instead of a structure composed of low, middle, and high income levels, we’re down to low and high only... My work stands in opposition to this trend.”

Art as a critique of luxury and excess! Art as opposition to the widening gap between the rich and the poor! How noble and courageous that sounds. But the art market’s greatest strength is its ability to co-opt any radical demands that a work of art makes, and turn it into another consumer good for the super-rich. When Christie’s put Koons’s work up for auction, the toy train filled with bourbon sold for $33 million.

If artists, art critics, and art buyers really had any interest in reducing the widening gap between the rich and the poor, they would be focusing their efforts on developing countries, where spending a few thousand dollars on the purchase of works by indigenous artists could make a real difference to the wellbeing of entire villages.

Nothing I have said here counts against the importance of creating art. Drawing, painting, and sculpting, like singing or playing a musical instrument, are significant forms of self-expression, and our lives would be poorer without them. In all cultures, and in all kinds of situations, people produce art, even when they cannot satisfy their basic physical needs.

But we don’t need art buyers to pay millions of dollars to encourage people to do that. In fact, it would not be hard to argue that sky-high prices have a corrupting influence on artistic expression.

As for why buyers pay these outlandish sums, my guess is that they think that owning original works by well-known artists will enhance their own status. If so, that may provide a means to bring about change: a redefinition of status along more ethically grounded lines.

In a more ethical world, to spend tens of millions of dollars on works of art would be status-lowering, not status-enhancing. Such behavior would lead people to ask: “In a world in which more than six million children die each year because they lack safe drinking water or mosquito nets, or because they have not been immunized against measles, couldn’t you find something better to do with your money?”

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (6)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedRichard S. Stone

      Although obviously well intended, this strikes me as a version of a sermon to give money to the poor. The purchased art is an alternative form of currency, or an investment, or possibly an ornament for the buyer. But in any event, the seller of the art now has the money. Maybe the sellers of the art could help the poor?

      Is any of this "art' (or "Art...") worth the millions of dollars paid? Clearly the author thinks some of it might be valuable, but not all, but here we have willing buyer's and sellers, etc. for all of it.

      What this really tells us is that taxes on the rich, and on these transactions, are inadequate in concept and in effect. It is a good that the rich support the arts. But is it the very best way to manage our resources? (And in one sense the rich are very much the beneficiaries of the resources at the disposal of human-kind, and the rich are a part of the whole, such that their skills for making money and their own creative talents should benefit human-kind.)

        CommentedTristan Cummings

        This was interesting to read: perhaps Singer doesn’t flesh out his argument because it is so well known but perhaps a clearer articulation might help? He would begin with the assumption that 1) preventable suffering is bad. The next step is to say that 2) if we can prevent this suffering without losing anything comparably morally important we ought to do so. Therefore 3) there is a moral duty to spend your money to relieve suffering. The fact that your money hasn’t’ “disappeared” doesn’t discharge that duty: you cannot claim that by spending money on art the possibility that someone else will satisfy their duty will satisfy your own? As far as I understand Singer provides you with a choice: spend your money to relieve suffering where it is preventable and not to the detriment of something else that is morally valuable (and if we agree that this art is not comparably morally valuable to the life of another it is not valuable in this moral way) or fail your duty to do so.

    2. CommentedD. V. Gendre

      If Gresham's law is applied then one can understand why people invest, or try to exchange their Dollars for art, jewelry and other luxury goods which are rare and scarce no matter how high the price is. So art is definitely not a consumer good but an investment for the super-rich. I do not want to go into the definition of a consumer good since this is basic knowledge. But such statements are definitely not in favor for credibility of the author.
      I also can't understand the concept of buying indigenous art in developing countries to support an entire village. I highly doubt that this is in some way helpful or sustainable. I also doubt that the money for a piece of art would enrich a whole village at all if there is no law enforcement to do so. And such law would most likely indicate to a totalitarian state.

    3. Commentedupanishad chakrabarti

      A thoughtful article, but not sure I agree entirely. Full response below on my blog, but briefly: the aesthetic comments about Newman's etc work aren't adequately substantiated; making art-work in series, as in the 'zip' paintings does not devalue the work, at least according to contemporary art-theory. But my main concern is that this ignores the art-object's status as an asset, and assets get bought and sold all the time, at crazy prices, by willing buyers and sellers. To posit that somehow preventing transacting in art objects would or could lead to more socially valuable, or ethical, uses of the money, is a position whose logic I cannot follow. This is also a pretty dated, yet undeniably evergreen, topic within the contemporary art theoretical discourse.


    4. CommentedA R

      A great story on the relationship between the art merchants and "investors" would be that of Joseph Duveen. I am sure art collectors love for the work they are buying is genuine. Maybe even the emotions that it animates in them are genuine. Although maybe its not only the respect for the ouvre that motivates them.
      And the second, about the more ethical relationship to art, would be that of how iron "jewelery" became the most respected, because it symbolized the families commitment to war effort in Prussia in the XIXth century... hmm... war effort. Maybe slightly ambivalent ethically, but still...