Addendum: On Sale this Spring For What?

Posted on by

Well, dear reader, the auction results from our little game of match the estimate to the artwork are in. Sotheby’s had a terrible night on Tuesday, not selling some of its bigger works. To add insult to injury, Christies had a pretty good night on Wednesday selling the same artists.

Sotheby’s couldn’t sell its Picasso (estimated at $16-24M) or its Giacometti at the Impressionist and Modern auction. Giacommetti’s The Cat ($16-24M) at Sotheby’s went nowhere, even though the next night at Christies Giacometti’s “Bust of Diego (Stele III)” sold for more than its high estimate of $6.5 million.

On the other hand, Sotehby’s Monet sold for well over its estimate. Six bidders fought for “Sailboat on the River Seine, Argenteuil” that was originally estimated to fetch $1.2-1.8M. It was purchased for $3.4M.

Affordable Art Fair: Rosé, Pluralism, and Urban Outfitters

Posted on by

The Affordable Art Fair opens today, and, as its name suggests, it is a pandemonium of booths representing art on the lower end of things, from $100 to $10,000 (75% of the art is under $5,000.) At the cocktail reception last night, I had three things on my mind: pluralism, Urban Outfitters, and rosé. The rosé explains itself, I suppose, and the other two–pluralism and Urban Outfitters–were all I could afford to take away. Not to mention, as a warning to those of you who go, fairs are like speed dating, which can be daunting if you want to fall in love.


Pluralism, while not quite anything goes, describes a variety of styles being pursued alongside each other in the art world. The evidence that the art world is pluralistic mounted from gallery to gallery. (See Wikipedia on it here, and interesting recent discussion of it on Edward Winkleman’s blog.) Between abstract painting and small sketches, to some castings and interesting mixed media panels, it was quite a whirl. There was even a Native American–although he himself wasn’t for sale. There were some very good pieces last night, especially (predictably) on the higher end of things. I also had the pleasure of seeing some New York galleries I was unfamiliar with. This review would of course be more interesting if I had taken some semblance of notes; you know, put specifics to generalities. Unfortunately, I did not and yet I will forge onward to make what is no doubt a very gauche point.

Urban Outfitters, a trendy clothing store not entirely devoted to teens, has a rather good looking selection of things for the apartment. Among curtains and teacups, they have wall art. If you wondering what on earth this had to do with the Affordable Art Fair last night, let me explain: Urban Outfitters did not have a booth. But what they do have are a lot of pieces in similar styles to what I saw last night.

Like H+M to high fashion, Urban Outfitters is able to ape some of the many styles represented last night. That’s a commendation to Urban Outfitters rather than a sleight to the Affordable Art Fair, but I do think its telling that the pluralism that I thought was so varied on an individual level could actually be codified in a department store. Good art, of course, transcends such classifications and there were many great pieces at the fair. Also, Urban Outfitters (or Art.com or Target or whatever) aren’t as well-made in terms of material, expression, the technique and work put into them, or originality. But they look rather similar.
Between the rosé and the Urban Outfitters comparison, you might decide I have abominable taste and stop reading this blog. Maybe I do; I didn’t fall in love with any of the pieces and found the fair bewilderingly fun. Basically, it has original, well-made artworks for every taste and every price point. And that makes for a good art fair, and one that can’t be replaced by a visit to the decorative prints at Urban Outfitters.
For a nice review of the Affordable Art Fair, check out monkdogz’ artblog.

Photography –> Engagement?

Posted on by


I wrote a rather annoyed post against photographing works of art in museums. This was mainly a rant against cell-phone camera gaggles who cruise through the museum capturing blurred images of masterworks without really looking at them, not to mention getting in my way and seeming to miss the point of the museum: to look at art.

The blatant hypocrisy of this view, as I take photos in museums, is not lost on me, nor is the elitism of my quibbling justification that I really look at the art and try to be aware of the people around me.

To use my two exemplars for the last post, MoMA and Met have different photography policies. MoMA is quite good about letting it’s visitors take pictures without flash. The Met does not allow photography at all. The Met’s policy may be the best, as quite a few people at MoMA accidentally take flash photos. This could eventually harm the painting. Anyhow, photos of paintings are so unimpressive in quality compared to the original, it’s almost a waste of time to take one. (And did I mention the gaggles wielding camera phone?)

On the other hand, one of our compatriots here at Art Ravels suggested to me that they could be taking them to share with friends and relatives who will not have the opportunity to see them in person. To which I say, touche. Another commenter pointed out that he liked taking photos of installations and sculpture because he felt he was able to bring out different facets of the work. To which, again, I say touche.

Most interestingly, it was suggested that I look at Thomas Struth’s Museum Photographs, which document viewers reactions to art pieces. These well-behaved museum goers, even the children sitting on the floor, all seem to be looking at the paintings and not taking photos. But then again, all they ever do is stand their and stare. This got me thinking: more than a sign of visible approval, is taking a picture the one way a visitor can react when presented with an art object? Maybe people in museums should be able to do more, before the atmosphere turns into something as quiet, reverential, and ignored as the one below.


Art as it is most often presented is a take, not give, kind of thing. If you want to react to it, you end up removed to a different room miles away typing on a computer into a blog or some such tomfoolery. Perhaps photography is a sign of engagement. Do you think picture-taking is a way of responding to and interacting with the art?

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were more?