Tag Archives: francis bacon

Francis Bacon at the Met

Posted on by
Painting
Francis Bacon, the British painter (not Renaissance thinker Sir Francis Bacon), has always stuck out like a sore thumb in the history of painting. A sore gangrened thumb at that. When everyone else was painting abstractly, he remained resolutely figurative. Where people went to art school, he taught himself by going to museums. And when most people shy away from the sheer horror and grotesqueness of his jailed male figures surrounded by meat, he delved into it.
Triptych, 1974-77

The artist broke a record for contemporary art sales when a triptych of his sold for $86 million dollars last year, and he was the subject of two retrospectives at the Tate during his lifetime, and another last year. (He died in 1992.) Now the retrospective is moving to the Met (of all places). It opens tomorrow–and I look forward to seeing it. Jerry Saltz wrote an excellent article on Bacon in this week’s New York Magazine because of the new exhibition, asking the question “Was Francis Bacon really the greatest painter of the twentieth century, or just a fascinating mess?” “Greatest painter of the twentieth century” is quite a title, and not one I’m sure I’d grant Bacon, although he was a good painter who created resonant, interesting works of great color. (If you want to see what a fascinating mess he was, Saltz touches on his life history.)

Figure with Meat

Bacon is a tough artist to understand: His paintings create such a visceral reaction in the viewer that I think it can be difficult to look beyond the subject matter. Margaret Thatcher famously described him as “that man who paints those dreadful pictures.” People commonly assume that such repetitive grotesque angst can’t be real, that he’s hamming it up. (Excuse the pun–and just be glad I haven’t tried my cleverness on his last name yet.) Saltz feels it becomes gimmicky, and so did quite a few people I was talking to the past Sunday. Yet the artist is at his best with these bruised mutants encased in flat rooms of color.

So what do you think, a yay or a nay for Bacon?

See Two Coats of Paint for more information on the exhibition itself.

Housing prices are inflated? Let’s discuss art prices

Posted on by

An artist, a recognized artist who sells his works, offered to pay my boyfriend in paintings. A little unorthodox, yes, but I was psyched. Then he told me he did not take it. A year ago I would have argued it was a great economic investment, not just a way for me to get art on the wall. But now, was his choice the wisest economically?

Even a year ago people considered he unprecedented demand and prices for fine art might be a bit of a bubble. Articles have been popping up left and right to debate that theory now. Here’s a selection, from The New York Times, The Business Times, The Times, and the International Herald Tribune. Note that there’s not an art rag among them.

Catherine Rampell wrote a blog for the New York Times entitled, dismally enough, The Art of Recession. Despite it being a dismal science, Rampell prognosticated on behalf of collectors, pointing to “the failure of a number of large banks may put their corporate art collections back on the market on the cheap” as an example of cheaper prices to come. Makes things a little insecure for the art investor though, with the prediction that “the market for contemporary art assets may soon plummet.”

On behalf of art as an alternate “passion” investment, The Business Times points to “Proponents of the segment argue that art, being a real asset and devoid of the mind-numbing complexity of derivatives, should retain its sheen as a ‘passion’ investment.” They have an interesting quote from auction house Christie’s president (Asia) Andrew Foster: “Art is a very real and tangible thing. Clients agree that art has inherent value….That doesn’t mean prices don’t fluctuate, but value is agreed upon and inherent, and it springs from cultural and global trends more than trading multiples.” Is that true, though?
Also of note, the article mentions the Mei Moses Fine Art Index. According to which, all art for 2007 rose 20 per cent, a performance only surpassed by some of the annual returns achieved in the art bubble years of 1984 to 1990–more than the 5.5 per cent achieved by the S&P. Yet art, too, “has its boom and bust cycles, as Michael Moses, the creator of the index, told Reuters earlier this year.”

But let’s consider results of some recent big auctions. A headline from the Times on October 20, 2008 is ‘Growing signs of art slump as Freud’s portrait of Bacon fails to fetch £7m’ and the IHT reports ‘At contemporary art sales, market stumbles on.’ These are not chipper reports on the auction front. Christies and Sotheby’s have their big auction in November, so that will prove the true bellwether. Yet buyers in the art sector, like every other, seem to be skittish. Souren Melikian writes for the IHT that “The short message is that there is life left in the contemporary art market at 25 to 30 percent below current ambitions. That is very good in the current circumstances. Auction houses and their consigners had better heed the lesson.”
That’s why she’s saying. These do not herald good times ahead for people who count their worth in paintings. On the other hand, if you’re a buyer of impervious fortune, times are great. Less competition for cheaper prices on works you love. What I’m saying: yippee! A Lucian Freud of Francis Bacon for £5.42 million! Andy Warhol’s “Nine Multicolored Marilyns” for a song! If prices keep going down at this rate, I’ll be able to buy something in 10 years.

Until then, all you art investors out there, you have my deepest sympathy. You poor souls, locked in your worthless mansions, staring across your foyer in your silk bathrobe looking at the now moderately-priced Picasso.