"Buy art. It makes you feel good!"

April 16, 2009 3:29 AM

Are times of recession good or bad for the contemporary art market and artists? "Affordable" is becoming a leitmotif: there are events, international fairs, as well as various galleries. Some collectors and artists are sharing survival tips and tricks; and there are plenty of special offers to be had: Josh Poehlein - screenshot collages, free ; Shepard Fairey - "Obey Eye" screen print, 18 x 24 inches, signed and numbered, at a random time on April 21st: $45.00 ; Michel Gondry - your portrait, signed: $19.95 (allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery); 'Damien Hirst' - "For the love of Paris" postcard, 10.5 x 14.8 cm, signed and sent: € 1,80 ; Banksy - original, freely usable, high-quality jpg files: free.
posted by progosk (31 comments total)

All I know is, if the St. Louis Art Museum has a fire sale, I've got my eye on Sadak in Search of the Waters of Oblivion.
posted by adipocere at 3:48 AM on April 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

I bought a Banksy (Golf Sale) years ago for £36. Last year the same picture sold on ebay for more than £1,000.

If it wasn't bad enough that I should have bought more, I actually gave the one I had bought away as a gift. D'oh.
posted by MuffinMan at 3:56 AM on April 16, 2009

You can always find as good art as any in a gallery in the dumpster out behind the art school. Or on the postcard rack at the museum. Delightful art is all around us, cheap. I mean, if you're not looking for an "investment." If investing in images on arbitrarily valued paper is your thing, go into sports cards, or currency.
posted by Faze at 4:26 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

We just want to make a living.

I have some lovely small limited edition texture study prints for $45 from a recent Montreal trip, see seanmpuckett.com. Also poster sizes of most works for $59. Canadian.

Any other MeFites got cheep art?
posted by seanmpuckett at 4:44 AM on April 16, 2009

Now is definitely the time to cuts deals if you're a collector. I'm working with several artists (won't name or link due to obvious conflict of interest), and if you've got the disposable cash, a genuine liking for their work and, of course, an infinite time frame, this is a very good time to acquire.

When I was running my galleries in New York back in the early 80s, I'd always counsel folks never to purchase art as an investment, rather only buy stuff you like and won't mind looking at forever. Our flat has about fifty pieces up at any time, and we try to rotate stuff in storage onto the walls (and vice versa) as often as possible.

And try to acquire stuff by lesser successful artists, even if you can afford better known names - again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with investing; rather your cash goes a lot farther.

Mrs Mutant and I were at a Gilbert and George show at Tate Modern a couple of years ago. As part of the (really very great!) show Tate was offering members limited edition, signed and numbered Gilbert and George prints. Now I've loved their work for years, and was sorely tempted but instead took the money and bought pieces from six not very well known English artists. So instead of one (very nice) piece created and signed by Gilbert and George themselves (hi guys!) we got six (also very nice) pieces from other artists with different styles and in much different parts of their careers.

Another interesting tactic recessions bring to the forefront: you can cut a deal to fund an artist, picking one or more works that you like out of a body that was created with your money. This is a totally positive activity in my view.

I did this in the mid 80's for an artist that I'm not going to name, and it has paid off immensely - in order of priorities: first, I made a good, solid friend and got to help out a struggling artist create during a tough economic climate. Second, I got to pick out and enjoy some totally cracking art, for two decades before, third and dead last on my list of priorities, his work was acquired by MOMA and a few other museums. Of course I didn't help him because I knew I'd get a positive return on the purchase. I helped him out solely for the first two reasons.

The third is a side benefit that I probably won't ever realise; see comments above about infinite time frame.
posted by Mutant at 4:48 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Every year I go along to the excellent Art car boot fair at the Truman Brewery in East London, and over the years I've bought a Sarah Lucas mug, a Peter Blake tax disc, a Bob and Roberta Smith rubbing, a Leigh Clarke poster and a Jamie Lau 3D photo of myself with a bag on my head. I've never spent more than I would on a good night out and now I've got myself a room full of art.

I'm not interested in selling any of it, the only thing I own that's probably really increased in value is a limited edition Do Ho Suh print, but there's not a day goes by that i don't look at some of the stuff and just feel better for it.

If you're in London the next boot fair is June 14th. Get down by lunchtime as a lot of stuff sells out quickly, but come down with friends for an afternoon out, it's one of the most fun days out of the year, with loads of really, really odd things going on. Personaly favourite is the fan-o-gram where you pay to have a group of teenagers descend on your chosen target for five minutes and treat them like they're Take That, screaming 'I can't believe it's you', demanding autographs and taking photos, before disappearing as quickly as they arrived and leaving one very bemused victim.
posted by ciderwoman at 4:54 AM on April 16, 2009

We just want to make a living.

That, and find an audience for our creative obsession.

Any other MeFites got cheep art?

Yes, particularly if you like adventuring cats.
posted by Kikkoman at 4:56 AM on April 16, 2009

Art is worth what someone will pay for it. Other than materials costs, it has no intrinsic value and very little if any practical utility ("decoration," maybe, but you can buy a 10 dollar abstract painting made by a machine for the same purpose and no one will care). "Contemporary fine art" has been ridiculously over-priced as a luxury good for ages now, but especially in the last decade or two. (This of course means we don't average in the value -- or cost -- of the majority of works of "fine art" that never sell, that end up costing the artist money to make -- if you add that in, of course, the net value of all currently available contemporary fine art is less than zero.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:56 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

The Affordable Art Fair linked to above takes place in Battersea Park, a few minutes' walk from where I live. It is almost charming in the shamelessness with which its "affordable" means "not actually affordable to most people in the area": it costs £10 to get in, and their definition of affordable (as declared triumphantly on large canvases around the park) is "under £3000".

(A hundred years ago, trade-unionists, communists and suffragettes in Battersea were fighting off - literally! There were riots! Dead dogs were waved around on sticks! - medical students from across the river, who had taken offense at Battersea's anti-vivisection statue of a small brown dog. As slightly bewildering art-related incursions into Battersea by the relatively wealthy go, the Affordable Art Fair is certainly preferable.)
posted by severalbees at 4:59 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Art is worth what someone will pay for it. Other than materials costs, it has no intrinsic value and very little if any practical utility.

Well, yes, if you place no value on the ability, talent, training and personal vision of the artist. I agree visual art can be ludicrously overvalued, largely by people using pieces of art as status symbols and trading chips. But the idea of 'intrinsic' value is absurd as applied to art. While it can and has been turned into mass-marketed product, that doesn't mean that interesting ideas are valueless.

Personally, I love finding art I can afford to buy directly, and whereever possible I'll buy some, even if it's only one of many prints - if you enjoy someone's work, it's a good thing to try and support that person's artistic career, much as you'd pay for a book, buy a band t-shirt, go to a gig, watch a movie by a particular director or otherwise support any form of creative endeavour with your time, attention and money.
posted by Happy Dave at 5:13 AM on April 16, 2009

Well, yes, if you place no value on the ability, talent, training and personal vision of the artist.

LOL.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:43 AM on April 16, 2009

Well, that's constructive.
posted by Happy Dave at 6:12 AM on April 16, 2009

but you can buy a 10 dollar abstract painting made by a machine for the same purpose and no one will care

I'm not sure that "no one will care" is a good criterion to hold your taste up to.

OK, I lied. I'm sure it's not.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:30 AM on April 16, 2009

Uh, about this Banksy thing. Several years ago, before I knew who Banksy was, I was in London and saw one of his rat stencils near the Thames. It was pretty cool, so I took a picture.

I'm pretty sure that he wasn't paid to put that there and I wasn't billed for taking the picture. The big difference now is I can sit here in my underwear 7000 miles away and it's still free.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 6:37 AM on April 16, 2009

Adipocere: Me too! That is my favorite piece in the SLAM...
posted by schyler523 at 6:54 AM on April 16, 2009

And for all those more interested in art for art's sake rather than a canny investment, can I recommend the documentary Beautiful Losers? It's just brilliant.
posted by ciderwoman at 7:04 AM on April 16, 2009

I'm partial to the 20x200 folks. One day I will get over my Google Checkout aversion and buy something like this.
posted by jessamyn at 7:27 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

I sell art and cards every November, and my sales were down by $200 in 2008 compared to 2007. As they are community craft sales, I rarely have anything over $15 as churches don't have ATMs ;-). It was sad to see people unable to decide if they should spend $1.50 on a magnet. Similarly my mother sells knit goods and never before had we seen so many people pick something up, turn it over, obviously wanting it very much, and then putting it back down. Times are really tough when people can't afford a $6 pair of handmade slippers.

Any other MeFites got cheep art?

If anyone is interested, most of my ACEOs (art trading cards) start at $10 on Etsy or ArtFire. My art is quite cheepy, as I like birds.
posted by Calzephyr at 7:56 AM on April 16, 2009

Any other MeFites got cheep art?

I usually show at galleries here in Atlanta, but I'm willing to do prints of my art stuff
My lowbrow art

I have a giclee print of this just sitting in my office if anyone is interested, I'll let it go for 50.00
posted by Hands of Manos at 8:26 AM on April 16, 2009

I found a cool artist through the flickr Friday Illustration pool. I followed a link to her etsy site and bought a cool original watercolor (moleskin sized, but hey, not a print!) for about $10. I highly recommend felicitate88's art especially if you like dogs, cats, dog on scooters, and hedgehogs reading to snails.
posted by vespabelle at 9:35 AM on April 16, 2009

Well, that's constructive.

No, it's my reaction to the idea that an "artist's" time, creativity, personal vision, whatever, are worth more than someone else's similar investment in the creation of items of no general utility.

I am not crying for newspapers, book authors (I am one), popular musicians who used to make money selling recordings (I was one, albeit not much money), or Wall St. bankers suddenly out of work because they built mountains out of butter under the bright sun.

Hard to cry much for visual artists. They never had much of a game anyway.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:41 AM on April 16, 2009

No, it's my reaction to the idea that an "artist's" time, creativity, personal vision, whatever, are worth more than someone else's similar investment in the creation of items of no general utility

I haven't seen anyone say that the artists time is more valuable than anyone elses, just dispute your desire to ignore that time completely.
posted by ciderwoman at 9:47 AM on April 16, 2009

Hard to cry much for visual artists. They never had much of a game anyway.

Im trying figure out how someone could get this way. Its baffling. Is it a defense mechanism? I see other people finding meaning and emotion in this painting, I feel nothing, therefore these people must be stupid? I dont think anyone starts out life thinking like this.
posted by ElmerFishpaw at 10:01 AM on April 16, 2009

This thread is awesome! Thanks everyone.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:43 AM on April 16, 2009

Elmer, I think we're supposed to take away the judgement that creative endeavours are worthless, and the only good in the world is something that can be used for a concrete purpose. Unfortunately for this attitude, we're genetically hard wired to appreciate beauty even if only to evaluate suitability of potential mates and living quarters. Seeing things as beautiful if they are good for us is really: because they are good for us, we see them as beautiful, lovely, tasty, etc. And we have hundreds of centuries of riffing on these embedded preferences in our music, our art, our language, our food, and so on. Therefore, instead of saying we like art because it is good, I say instead that the arts are good because we like them. Just like fruit, trees, and the casual brush of a lover's hand. That's it. It's good because we like it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:47 PM on April 16, 2009

You know what I've been doing? Taking famous photographs, rasterizing and making them wall size. It is striking and effective. My favorites are Arbus' work and the famous "Untitled (Cowboy)" print. There's a fine line between cool and tacky, but if you stick to photographs that lend themselves to rasterization it can work surprisingly well. PS If anyone has a high resolution of "99 cent II, diptychon" I would thank you a thousand times over.
posted by geoff. at 1:57 PM on April 16, 2009

I dated a lot of artists. Sure, it seems like I got a house-load of free art out of it, but man, artists are high maintenance. But seriously folks...

I love comic art, and I've purchased some amazing things at CBLDF auctions, and similar fund raising auctions. Local art shows are a bonanza for finding fabulous pieces. And museums always have reproductions, if what you want is classical art.

Also, there are a ton, a veritable ton, of amazing artists that hang out here. I know, because I've traded stuff with fellow mefites, and I've never been disappointed with any of the surprise packages I've opened.

I think it would be really cool if we could have something like an art.metafilter that could be a gallery space where some of our homegrown blue talent could share/sell their art.
posted by dejah420 at 6:02 PM on April 16, 2009

but man, artists are high maintenance.

not all of us. I'm a really laid back dude...except for deadlines, then I freak the fuck out. any other time, I'm really laid back
posted by Hands of Manos at 8:42 PM on April 16, 2009

I love the whole limited edition glycee print thing... the quality on those things is pretty amazing. I recently bought an awesome piece from brandon bird for totally reasonable prices.
posted by ph00dz at 9:55 PM on April 16, 2009

I think it would be really cool if we could have something like an art.metafilter that could be a gallery space where some of our homegrown blue talent could share/sell their art.

I'd really love to discuss and share art and art techniques in the same way music is discussed and shared via music.metafilter.com. I imagine it would be quite a bit more challenging for administrators, though.
posted by Kikkoman at 9:58 PM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

.....aaaaaand the Fairey prints are all gone. Did anyone get one?
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:40 AM on April 21, 2009