Art fairs are about money not art

Art fairs are about money not art

29 Mar 2010

Why Now?

In the age of the art superstar, can art really claim to be more than a luxury cultural commodity? Likewise, are art fairs anything more than glorified megastores, hungry for bulging bottom lines? With the annual Frieze art fair about to kick off in Regent's Park, London, we revisit a debate which pitted Jasper Joffe, founder of the Free Art Fair, and an artist who once sold all of his paintings and possessions, against Matthew Slotover, the magazine editor who co-founded Frieze in 2003 with Amanda Sharp, and has since seen it grow to rival Basel and Miami as the world's leading contemporary art fair.

Art and money have never been easy bedfellows. On the day that Lehman Brothers tumbled to the ground in 2008, Damien Hirst recorded combined sales of £111m for 223 lots during an auction at Sotheby’s, breaking the then world record total auction sales for a living artist. Hirst is the doyen of the mega-auction. He has sought to transcend the gap between art and commerce, turning the auction itself into a work of art upon which he exhibits his individual works. This is a model which encapsulates the ethos of arts fairs such as Frieze; people are encouraged to experience a consumerist metamorphosis; the act of art purchasing itself bringing the buyer into the art world.

Next week will see the return of the Hirst ‘megasale’, as his latest primary work, a butterfly canvas called “I Am Become Death, Shatterer of Worlds” goes up for auction at Christie's with a £2.5-3.5m price tag. But, as the Economist recently noted, despite this hefty estimate, Hirst’s annual auction sales fell by 93% in 2009 and are on course to be lower still in 2010. Does the pursuit of financial reward, and saturation of the art market, end up destroying an artists worth?

Frieze acts as a hearty barometer for the state of the art market worldwide. In 2009, despite the usual lavish show there was an air of despondency surrounding Frieze, and the dealers were unusually quiet about the sales figures that they previously been very willing to announce. Yet despite this, the 2010 edition of the fair is the biggest yet, expanding to include a staggering 173 galleries. But does the collection of such a vast quantity of art offer an enhanced experience for art lovers when each item has a price tag firmly attached? Frieze has had to contend with accusations of commercialism and driving artists towards ‘safe’ saleable art instead of fostering a culture of creative decadence.

In this event held at the Saatchi Gallery in March 2010, watch a panel of leading figures from the art world discuss the validity of art fairs as spectacles for art lovers and as shop fronts for artists.

Event information:

Art fairs, scoff the critics, have become shopping malls for the super-rich. They are giant marketplaces for the wealthy to buy, invest and speculate on the commodity of art. Galleries pressure artists to churn out 'safe', sellable works, which are not so much looked at as bought in bulk. But are art fairs in fact the perfect format for visitors to see art from all over the world which they wouldn't otherwise see? And by allowing artists to show their work to potential buyers en masse are these shows a crucial lifeline for artists today?

The panel debate the motion: Art fairs are about money not art. Chaired by Simon de Pury.

Arguing for the motion are Louisa Buck, Jasper Joffe, and Matthew Collings.

Louisa Buck begins the defence with the claim that art fairs are commercial, rather than curatorial in nature. She believes that art fairs provide an opportunity to see how the art world operates and to see what it deems to be good art.

Jasper Joffe argues that collectors, rather than artists, hold the power at art fairs. This ultimately corrupts art and hinders both creativity and the emergence of a meritocracy in the art world.

Matthew Collings argues that art fairs are by definition consumerist. Art fairs are one of the worst ways to encounter art because art exists, and should exist, as an antidote to consumerism.

Arguing against the motion are Richard Wentworth, Matthew Slotover and Sir Norman Rosenthal.

Richard Wentworth argues that it is up to the individual to choose whether to visit an art fair and to make their own judgements about the art exhibited there. Art fairs exist as one component of the process of developing self-knowledge.

Matthew Slotover argues that the primary aim of art fairs is to buy and sell art, but also to provide visitors with an opportunity to encounter a wide and thought-provoking range of art.

Norman Rosenthal explains that art fairs are merely one way of encountering art. It would be hypocritical to suppose that art should not be about money when all those participating in the industry need it to support themselves.

Final Vote: A show of hands of the audience revealed that the numbers of those in favour of the motion and those against the motion were about the same, with a small minority undecided.

This debate was organised in association with the Saatchi Gallery and the A Foundation.