The Best Investment
Quite a lot has been written about the worth of art. There are whole books devoted to the matter (and a personal favorite? The Worth of Art by Judith Benhamou- it’s a great gift). But as “valuable” as the diamond studded skull “For the Love of God” by Damian Hirst may be, I don’t want it in my house. It makes me a little sick to look at it. Instead, I want to surround myself with beautiful things, with pieces I adore and art that has meaning to me. There is a quality that I look for in fine art, and it must pass that test in order to be worthy of space in my home.
Only you can decide what that quality is you are looking for. You have to be discerning and educate yourself about what is out there. One of the best parts of working in a gallery is discovering each and every person’s definition of their own qualifications and desires for fine art. Tastes are subjective! John Keats described art in terms of its most important value, quality: “A thing of beauty if a joy forever: Its loveliness increases; and it will never pass into nothingness.”
Your pieces of art will last lifetimes if you curate a collection of beauty, as defined by you alone. The market is up, the market is down. No matter how the economy stands, surround yourself with the things that you love and you make the best possible investment: an investment in yourself.
Wow, hmm… I guess that I must be the only dude around here who loves Damien Hirst of course.
Being a conceptual artist, the value of an art is its driving idea, not the technique for its own sake. My opinion is that beauty is simply a Western construct but which doesn’t test the limits of what art ought to be aspiring to… challenging the human mind.
For example, there are many who find Richard Serra’s drawing of Abu Gharib to be rather problematic from a traditionalist view. I find it intriguing and well worth the political statement which it is strongest in…
For some awesome art, check out the stuff from the Whitney Biennial 2008. Lots of great things going on over there…
Thanks for your comment, Qi. I love your perspective on “beauty” and its relationship to art.
So, your a fan of Hirst. Even “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living”? I don’t think collectors should be responsible for so much upkeep on a piece. I pity the man who has to reconstruct a dead shark in formaldehyde because it’s flaking apart. What does that do to the value of a piece?
Perhaps we’ll have to mount a conceptual exhibit sometime in the future to explore this further. Thanks again.
Hello there Maren,
Thanks for your kind response. Actually Hirst’s “Physical Impossibility” installation has been restored once for the collector. There was a bad formula mix-up in the formaldehyde preparation which had to be corrected for the new version. Of course, this isn’t the most problematic story for the lack of “archival” art in today’s world. (More at: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2180929,00.html)
For example, some of my most favorite art is hardly archival. Dieter Roth’s wonderful busts of himself in chocolate which I viewed at the 2004 MOMA retrospective was hardly archival but a tour de force in its emotional and humorous (at least in a Swiss way) resonances. (You can view this work at: http://www.artsjournal.com/artopia/2004/04/dieter_roth_breaking_the_mold.html) His other works which involve the idea of smell (mostly offensive) included rotting cheese (in his great Steeplecheese suitcase works) and spices and even wonderful landscapes executed in sausage!
In the Asian-American art vein, Terence Koh’s works have proven to be rather “problematic” for the collector. You can read more details at: http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/26275/ where his works involve the use of various substances. According to the article, “From the beginning, Koh has made a habit of using unusual materials: chocolate, semen, blood, vomit, Chanel lipstick. At first, Koh and Peres made the mistake of selling the work without detailing its fragility. “In our rush, our naïveté, it seemed clear that this work was going to change—I mean, it was made of ashes and chocolate. And collectors would later come and say, ‘This broke, can you fix it?’ ” Peres recalls. “Now, no work of Terence leaves my gallery without a release, because his materials are quite unusual.” Apparently it is the earthly qualities of Koh’s which collectors value very much and they continue to purchase his work at his gallery, Peres Projects and not including his lovely show at the Whitney a year ago.
Thus, Roth’s and Koh’s works seem to demonstrate that contemporary art began when people began to invest the idea part of art rather than the object itself. The philosophical concept of art began to trump the concept of mere representation. However, I am not against traditional representation par se as I am a HUGE fan of Elizabeth Peyton’s work. Her work can be declared as being too arch-conservative but it is the twist and whimsical approach to the idea of celebrity and gender issues which prevents her work from becoming a pure cliche.
Alas, about the conceptual exhibit, that would be something well worth taking up on. Lately I have been busy preparing my new works for an upcoming art fair at Anna Kustera where Iao PROJECTS will be exhibiting. Mr. Wang has been rather supportive of my work as the challenges of finding an audience here could prove to be mostly insurmountable.
Thanks, Maren, for this rather profound and lovely discussion. I hope to have the chance to achieve some good understanding too.
sincerely, qi