I had wanted to write in about that for some time, as you Richard, and Amanda, do indeed assert that often. Come on, you are in Chicago where they have a vast market in Crop Futures — where one simply buys the opportunity to buy something in the future. Modern Capitalism can and does sell anything and everything! And site specific and/or event artists win most of the grants nowadays, which means they are also good at selling a product — their written proposals, in effect. I’ve won lots of those things, so I’m not complaining, I just want to point that out — and that the Object must be construed in a linguistic sense — even a rumor can be an object — we can put it in the “object” case in a sentence. Or in the philosophical sense — an aesthetic object can be a performance, a sneeze, whatever. So often, even those artists who win all the grants (thus working for and selling to corporations, agencies or governments) seem to state the same stuff about “oh poor little me, I have no object to sell.” It’s bad thinking, sounds disingenuous and is simply untrue.

Duncan got the Shark complaint correct too, Richard, but you did not. The “problem” is not with collectors — it is wonderful that people want to give us money for art AND want to live with it! I personally love to sell my art, and always say thank you very much. The “problem” is also not with gallerists — they have a rather difficult time too, mostly (although turning down “uncool” money is pretty damn short-sighted). The Shark problem is with a small, clique of decision-makers establishing an anti-productive Academy. I realize that some people, especially of my and your generations, find that thought threatening because they would like to believe that they had the opportunity in our expensive schools to memorize a list of What Is Correct and a list of How To Succeed. And such an anti-academic critique places that all in doubt. But in my experience of the newest generation(s) of students (I teach too), they don’t have that fear, often seem more punky-DIY. Perhaps this was a temporary aberration, certainly hope so.

Don’t mean to pick on you Richard — just all that came to me from your comments this time. But, just to bug you even more — Go Canada, Go Montana!

Interesting show. A big Thanks to the Conklins! I would love to see their collection. And hear him do a rap about it!

“I agree that we should admire and foster the interests of serious collectors because it takes enormous commitment and guts to buy art on the basis of its merits. But I need to say I am not so sure that quality in art depends on an artist’s social graces at a dinner party, verbal explanation of his or her art, or self promotion.”

Interestingly, I don’t think that most collectors (or artists) would have the hubris to claim they know what the ultimate quality of a work of art is. For that matter, I think we could probably argue that what is spoken of as ‘quality’ often isn’t really an intrinsic part of the work of art, but a label assigned by some sort of consensus, led by a small group of art-world tastemakers, plus random chance, and is often reconsidered at a later date.

Certainly, there is an aspect of first-ness, as well as virtuosity, historical significance, etc., but most of these are characteristics external to the work itself. The other idea of a work’s ‘quality,’ one born out of a personal resonance with a work (even when informed by all those other external factors) is what, I think, we hope for in a collector, because it implies a personal relationship to a work which mirrors how we, as artists, feel about our work ourselves.

katie sehr