Carol Vogel's New York Times story today on the art world topic of "younger and younger, what can you do about it?":Jack Tilton arrived at Columbia University on a recent Saturday with a camera around his neck and a venture capitalist by his side. It was a busy day for Mr. Tilton, a Manhattan dealer known for exhibiting the art of graduate students. He looked at the work of 26 students in their first year of a Master of Fine Arts program at Columbia, then struck out for New Haven to do the same thing at Yale. John Friedman, the venture capitalist, made that part of the tour a week later.
Tough lead paragraph, it's sad that it's come to this for Tilton--shooting fish in a barrel, hungry for love.
Update: Aaron Yassin says in the comments: It's unfortunate that this is the topic for the rare article on the visual arts for which the New York Times chooses to devote one quarter of the front page. What bothers me as much is when Carol Vogel says this: "...while first-rate artworks for sale decrease, dealers and collectors are scouring the country's top graduate schools..." The implication that the reason for this phenomenon is that all "first-rate" work is hard to come by is preposterous. Rather, this seems typical of our culture’s infatuation with youth. Instead of just admitting this, Vogel has to make some other kind of excuse like focusing on buying the work of younger and younger artists is really because there’s nothing else available.
My reply:
Unfortunately
"...while first-rate artworks for sale decrease, dealers and collectors are scouring the country's top graduate schools..."
is the widely-accepted wisdom of our current tulip mania bubble market. Almost no one in the market is in a position to disagree with this.
Vogel deserves more credit in my opinion for exposing this shaky logic to the world, by interviewing students embarrassed by the attention, school administrators mouthing fatuities, etc. She's leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusion that youth=value is demented, that the dealers and collectors are insecure and/or skanky, and that the schools are pimps, or at best, enablers. The great unspokens here are that 95% of art graduates stop making work once they get out of the supportive, structured environment of school, unless they get "picked up," and then they start doing bad work about two years out of school (and stop altogether a few years after that). The five percent who keep making art, year-in year-out, pickup or no pickup, are nutty, driven individuals and a pain in the neck for dealers. But it is from that possibly sexually unattractive minority, not "the country's top graduate schools," that most work (and therefore most good work) comes. Youthful energy is important, but in more cases than "the market" is prepared to admit, it wanes quickly.
Update 2: It's doubtful there are hard statistics on the art world dropout rate. Who would finance such a study? Based on years of watching "scenes" come and go I'd say the 95/5 numbers are conservative.
It's unfortunate that this is the topic for the rare article on the visual arts for which the New York Times chooses to devote one quarter of the front page. What bothers me as much is when Carol Vogel says this; "...while first-rate artworks for sale decrease, dealers and collectors are scouring the country's top graduate schools..." The implication that the reason for this phenomenon is that all "first-rate" work is hard to come by is preposterous. Rather, this seems typical of our culture’s infatuation with youth. Instead of just admitting this Vogel has to make some other kind of excuse like focusing on buying the work of younger and younger artists is really because there’s nothing else available.
Unfortunately
"...while first-rate artworks for sale decrease, dealers and collectors are scouring the country's top graduate schools..."
is the widely-accepted wisdom of our current Tulip mania bubble market. Almost no one in the market is in a position to disagree with this.
Vogel deserves more credit in my opinion for exposing this shaky logic to the world. She's leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusion that youth=value is demented, that the dealers and collectors are insecure and/or skanky, and that the schools are pimps, or at best, enablers.
Holy cow. are those documented statistics, or more anecdotal observation? if true... well, it explains so much.
Anecdotal observation based on years of watching students come charging out of grad school only to go "phht" rather immediately. I'm not sure anyone's done statistics on the art world dropout rate. In the Vogel article, Rochelle Feinstein uses the example "where are the '93 Biennial alums?" Hell, where are the 2002 Biennial alums? The number of people who "did art for a while and then realized how expensive and draining it is" is staggering. Tilton knows this--as do most of the museum pros. Yet we all go through the pretense that these heavily courted grad students will have a lifetime of artistic productivity a la Robert Rauschenberg and we must hook them up *now*.
Oh, and hi, Cinque. We haven't talked in a while.
Hey Tom,
Yeah, we used to mix it up back in the day! Anyway, yeah, the youth-hype machine... more annoying by the day. I don't hold anything against the artists; I'm all for doing different things at different times in life. I do hold something against the curator/collector class that ties value to novelty.
Someone pointed out something interesting to me the other day: that Basquiat really changed the collector world because he more than anyone in the modern period personified the overlooked genius-- bolstered by the artworld narrowly speaking, but not by the broad collector class until very late in the game. No collector now wants to be known as the boob who missed the next Basquiat. So they overcompensate by snapping up every babbling idiot kid on 23rd street, hoping he's the one that pays off.
The last time I was in New York I was actually young and very much immersed in the youth=genius art gallery culture. Even as a younger person I had found it highly irritating, as I knew my peers who were riding the waves were young and mostly shallow. I'm so glad this is being written about. I think this attitude is a huge huge detriment to our creative resources. The same is happening with literature. Look at the way the grad schools are churning it all out for ready sale.
art lotto. buy enough rub off tickets so one should hit.
It isn't easy working full-time to pay of your student loans and still have time, money and motivation to create. I have watched many talented individuals run out of energy and money. It isn't an easy game. Those who stick it out are often the residency whores and those who just didn't go to art school. I have a lot of respect for those people who decided that they were doing it without the degree.Very little for those who jump from one residency to another, as often times their portfolio is weaker than their written statements. 95/5 seems conservative to me as well when you consider the humongous number of kids enrolled in those programs. Ever kid is an artist now-a-days, they must be! It is part of the cultural definition of being individual, cool, sexy, "unique"(oh the irony) and sophisticated. After @ age 24 they have the same sort of job as anyone else. It is all so delusional. But I could go on and on about misguided youth.....
Wow- you people sound so whiny about those "yound shallow people".
What a bunch of haters. I dont think its the point but some of you come
across as a bunch of sour grapes. I mean just picking a 95/5 percentile
rate or people that leave/stay with their art professions based on personal experience? wtf hello. Tautology baloney.
I would be so much more intereted to read a cogent perspective on this issue - time to not read a typical blog I guess. bye
Hey, I'm young and deep. The point here is, who keeps working after school? Thanks for the statistical results you quoted, I'll now gladly eat my hat. Oh, wait, you didn't have any numbers. By the way, a tautology is a circular argument, not an argument based on personal observation.
According to the dean of my art school in '82 the stat was about 5%.
|
Carol Vogel's New York Times story today on the art world topic of "younger and younger, what can you do about it?": Tough lead paragraph, it's sad that it's come to this for Tilton--shooting fish in a barrel, hungry for love.
Update: Aaron Yassin says in the comments: My reply:The great unspokens here are that 95% of art graduates stop making work once they get out of the supportive, structured environment of school, unless they get "picked up," and then they start doing bad work about two years out of school (and stop altogether a few years after that). The five percent who keep making art, year-in year-out, pickup or no pickup, are nutty, driven individuals and a pain in the neck for dealers. But it is from that possibly sexually unattractive minority, not "the country's top graduate schools," that most work (and therefore most good work) comes. Youthful energy is important, but in more cases than "the market" is prepared to admit, it wanes quickly.
Update 2: It's doubtful there are hard statistics on the art world dropout rate. Who would finance such a study? Based on years of watching "scenes" come and go I'd say the 95/5 numbers are conservative.
- tom moody 4-15-2006 5:46 pm
It's unfortunate that this is the topic for the rare article on the visual arts for which the New York Times chooses to devote one quarter of the front page. What bothers me as much is when Carol Vogel says this; "...while first-rate artworks for sale decrease, dealers and collectors are scouring the country's top graduate schools..." The implication that the reason for this phenomenon is that all "first-rate" work is hard to come by is preposterous. Rather, this seems typical of our culture’s infatuation with youth. Instead of just admitting this Vogel has to make some other kind of excuse like focusing on buying the work of younger and younger artists is really because there’s nothing else available.
- Aaron Yassin (guest) 4-15-2006 8:45 pm
Unfortunately
is the widely-accepted wisdom of our current Tulip mania bubble market. Almost no one in the market is in a position to disagree with this.Vogel deserves more credit in my opinion for exposing this shaky logic to the world. She's leaving it to the reader to draw the conclusion that youth=value is demented, that the dealers and collectors are insecure and/or skanky, and that the schools are pimps, or at best, enablers.
- tom moody 4-15-2006 11:01 pm
Holy cow. are those documented statistics, or more anecdotal observation? if true... well, it explains so much.
- Cinque 4-17-2006 4:05 am
Anecdotal observation based on years of watching students come charging out of grad school only to go "phht" rather immediately. I'm not sure anyone's done statistics on the art world dropout rate. In the Vogel article, Rochelle Feinstein uses the example "where are the '93 Biennial alums?" Hell, where are the 2002 Biennial alums? The number of people who "did art for a while and then realized how expensive and draining it is" is staggering. Tilton knows this--as do most of the museum pros. Yet we all go through the pretense that these heavily courted grad students will have a lifetime of artistic productivity a la Robert Rauschenberg and we must hook them up *now*.
- tom moody 4-17-2006 5:06 am
Oh, and hi, Cinque. We haven't talked in a while.
- tom moody 4-17-2006 5:20 am
Hey Tom,
Yeah, we used to mix it up back in the day! Anyway, yeah, the youth-hype machine... more annoying by the day. I don't hold anything against the artists; I'm all for doing different things at different times in life. I do hold something against the curator/collector class that ties value to novelty.
Someone pointed out something interesting to me the other day: that Basquiat really changed the collector world because he more than anyone in the modern period personified the overlooked genius-- bolstered by the artworld narrowly speaking, but not by the broad collector class until very late in the game. No collector now wants to be known as the boob who missed the next Basquiat. So they overcompensate by snapping up every babbling idiot kid on 23rd street, hoping he's the one that pays off.
- Cinque 4-17-2006 6:40 am
The last time I was in New York I was actually young and very much immersed in the youth=genius art gallery culture. Even as a younger person I had found it highly irritating, as I knew my peers who were riding the waves were young and mostly shallow. I'm so glad this is being written about. I think this attitude is a huge huge detriment to our creative resources. The same is happening with literature. Look at the way the grad schools are churning it all out for ready sale.
- Vezna (guest) 4-19-2006 7:22 am
art lotto. buy enough rub off tickets so one should hit.
- bill 4-19-2006 6:30 pm
It isn't easy working full-time to pay of your student loans and still have time, money and motivation to create. I have watched many talented individuals run out of energy and money. It isn't an easy game. Those who stick it out are often the residency whores and those who just didn't go to art school. I have a lot of respect for those people who decided that they were doing it without the degree.Very little for those who jump from one residency to another, as often times their portfolio is weaker than their written statements. 95/5 seems conservative to me as well when you consider the humongous number of kids enrolled in those programs. Ever kid is an artist now-a-days, they must be! It is part of the cultural definition of being individual, cool, sexy, "unique"(oh the irony) and sophisticated. After @ age 24 they have the same sort of job as anyone else. It is all so delusional. But I could go on and on about misguided youth.....
- RobertHuffmann (guest) 4-25-2006 9:42 pm
Wow- you people sound so whiny about those "yound shallow people".
What a bunch of haters. I dont think its the point but some of you come
across as a bunch of sour grapes. I mean just picking a 95/5 percentile
rate or people that leave/stay with their art professions based on personal experience? wtf hello. Tautology baloney.
I would be so much more intereted to read a cogent perspective on this issue - time to not read a typical blog I guess. bye
- Bally (guest) 4-26-2006 2:57 am
Hey, I'm young and deep. The point here is, who keeps working after school? Thanks for the statistical results you quoted, I'll now gladly eat my hat. Oh, wait, you didn't have any numbers. By the way, a tautology is a circular argument, not an argument based on personal observation.
- tom moody 4-26-2006 3:17 am
According to the dean of my art school in '82 the stat was about 5%.
- steve 4-27-2006 1:02 am