The 99 Percent and the Value of Art
Sold on 12 November 2013 at Christie’s in New York for a staggering $142m, a Francis Bacon triptych has become, for now, the most expensive artwork ever to be sold at auction. This record-breaking sale is part of a far-reaching shift that is currently taking place in our globalized economy. More specifically, in this post I want to look at the value of art which is consumed by a global elite, or the top 1%, whose vested interest in the art market must be considered in relation to the remaining 99% of the world’s population. Widely adopted by the Occupy Movement, and further popularized by the American economist Paul Krugman, the political slogan ‘We are the 99 Percent’ describes the growing disparity and inequality of late capitalism.
“A major crisis is currently occurring in the global art market… precipitated by a global elite recognizing in the 1980s and 1990s that the acquisition of artworks, as tangible objects of value, can be used as an investment vehicle alongside other more traditional investments.”
In the first instance, this post will seek to contextualize how contemporary art is predominantly produced for and consumed by the top 1%. However, the exchange of artworks amongst the global elite focuses on the financial value of art as an object. In this article I wish to question a paradigm that primarily equates the value of art with financial value. Rather, what needs to be considered is how the economic inequality of late capitalism provoked the emergence of a new art which is widely shared on the Internet and which foregrounds art as a social agent for change. This value of art – an art that depicts late capitalism in crisis – cannot be measured by financial means, but rather, it must be measured in its ability to freely communicate and establish new perspectives on a quickly shifting social and economic condition.
A major crisis is currently occurring in the global art market. This crisis is precipitated by a global elite recognizing in the 1980s and 1990s that the acquisition of artworks, as tangible objects of value, can be used as an investment vehicle alongside other more traditional investments. This trend of investing in art at the top end of the market was in part fuelled by the global phenomenon of the art fair and the widening network of art biennales now stretching from Sao Paolo to Vladivostock. The trinity of art-object-investment gained a wholly new dimension when Art Basel in Switzerland was franchised in Miami Beach in 2002 with great success. In the new millennium the global art world celebrated ever-increasing prices by ‘masters’ as well as contemporary artists. The art auction season, spearheaded by Sotheby’s and Christie’s, became a spectacle in which an ever-increasing value in contemporary art caused an equal measure of amazement as well as bewilderment. For instance, at $3.34m Andreas Gursky’s ironically titled work 99 Cent became the most expensive photograph to be sold at auction in 2007. The value of the photograph cunningly surpasses the value of the entire store as well as its stock depicted within the image. The value of Gursky’s photograph and the perspective from which it was taken appears to symbolize the growing chasm between those who buy his works and those who purchase the 99 cent products as depicted in the image.
Then came the crash in 2008. Shocked Lehman Brothers employees carrying the content of their desk at the head quarters in New York and at Canary Wharf in London belongs to one of the most defining images of the 21st century. Another defining image is that of the former United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, a giant of a man and ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs, looking tired and worn out as he literally begs the US government to bailout the banks. Threatened by the prospect of a total collapse of the banking system, several governments throughout the world, in what now appears like an thrilling game of high stakes poker, followed the US lead suit by bailing out their banks. The logical conclusion that could have been drawn from the art market boom in the new millennium, followed by the near collapse of the banking system, a lack of liquidity and the ensuing age of austerity in 2008, would be that the art market too would suffer, if not collapse as well. Damien Hirst’s grotesquely opulent sculpture first exhibited in London in 2007 and which consisted of a platinum cast human skull encrusted with 8,601 diamonds titled For the Love of God seemed to epitomize an art market that has truly gone out of kilter with the rest of the economy. Hirst’s sculpture, in fact much of Hirst’s body of work as a whole, appeared to signify the end of an excessive and equally speculative era.
In 2013, half a decade since the crash, it is quite clear that far from collapsing or slowing down, the top end the global art market has, in fact, accelerated. Driven by even higher prices in artworks that are traded as commodities, this year Art Basel is expanding into Hong Kong in an attempt to cater to clients in the booming economies of Asia lead by Chinese buyers desperate to find ways to invest their money. This desperation is partially fuelled by the lack of other safe investment opportunities as the Chinese government seeks to cool down the domestic property bubble through taxation and strict limits on the amount of properties individuals can own. Here, the acquisition and collection of artworks is synonymous with wealth management. Yet in more ‘mature’ economies in Europe and America a very similar pattern is beginning to emerge in which only a tiny elite participates in the art market. This is the 1% as described by Paul Krugman. Whether it is Hong Kong, Moscow, London or New York, the long arms of the oligarchy are reaching deeper and deeper into the global art market, driving up prices of a commodity that is, increasingly, produced for this specific clientele. This form of art trading has, in fact, become a spectacle in its very own right: the London art fair Frieze Art combined with Frieze Masters recently charged the exorbitant entrance fee of £50, or about $80, for the pleasure to bask in the presence of the global super rich.
In this context it is important to specify that it is only the works of a few handful of artists represented by an even smaller number of galleries that are actively participating at the top end of the market. It usually excludes emerging artists, it excludes smaller galleries and it most likely excludes not-for-profit organizations. In that sense the art world is perfectly reflecting the economic conditions of the 1% as the art market too is only controlled by a small number of individuals, institutions and corporations. Recognizing this warped economic dynamic, in 2012 one of America’s foremost art critics, David Hickey, launched a fierce attack on contemporary art, arguing that it is made for extremely rich people for whom the critic acts as ‘intellectual head waiter’. Against this backdrop, traditional art historical interpretations of an artwork as an object, its classification in a canon and the subsequent consideration of its cultural value become increasingly irrelevant. If art becomes a form of wealth management, the prime concern is not a consideration of the art object’s cultural or social value, nor is it a consideration of the artwork in a wider canon, rather, it is purely a speculation about its future prospect to rise in financial value.
Yet inasmuch the art market is changing, the world as a whole is changing too. In Europe and America a once solid middle class is being decimated by austerity measures and a rising cost of living, whereas the boom in emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia or India reveals great social and economic inequalities. The crash of 2008 was an opportunity to create a more equal, more sustainable and fairer world. Instead, the crash has caused the exact opposite: never before has the gap between the rich and poor been wider and never before has the global economy reflected a plutocracy than it does today. The shockwaves of capitalism in crisis are increasingly perceptible as major protests and riots continue to breakout in cities across the world. There were almost as many major riots in 2011 across the globe as there were in the entire first decade of the new millennium. It would be incorrect to contribute this only to the Arab Revolution(s) as protests partially galvanized by the Occupy movement continue to develop in major cities. At this historic junction, in which the 1% seek to maintain the status quo and the 99% seek to invert it, the production, dissemination and appreciation of art shall play a major social function.
Inasmuch the huge influx of money created a crisis of meaning in art at the top end of the market, the art produced by and for the 99% acts as an agent advocating social change. In the first instance, this art is not shared in galleries that are haemorrhaging the finances of the plutocracy, it does not constitute an ‘investment’ in the strict financial meaning of this term, nor is it exclusively visible to those who can buy it. Rather, this art of the moment is ubiquitously available via the Internet, it bears a resemblance with a meme in that it is widely shared and evokes ideas that help to explain the present condition. This art taps into the imagination of a generation who is frustrated about the present status quo yet who is equally optimistic about the future. This art does not simply represent the world that we live in, but rather, it provokes ideas about how this world can change for the better, how it can be more sustainable, how it can be more equal. Like a virus spreading rapidly across geographic, religious, political or ethnic boundaries, this art is powerful – it has the power to change people’s perception of the world and, as such, it has the power to change the perception of one’s position in this world. Such art usually bypasses considerations about authorship or about originality. The craft apparent in this art cannot be found in the eloquence of a brushstroke or the aesthetic composition of an image, but rather, the craft of this artwork can be found in the ‘beauty’ of the idea that it communicates. The more powerful the idea the more this art is shared amongst others. The cultural and social value of this art, as opposed to its financial value, lies in its ability to communicate, or, as the Latin origin of the word suggests, in its ability to relate to the common.
Originally posted on the Visual Culture Blog. Posted with permission by @MarcoBohr.
11 thoughts on “The 99 Percent and the Value of Art”
Leave a Reply
> Next Post It started with a tombola…
< Previous Post Music study visit and more
Tutor News – Katrina Whitehead
6 Comments
Some of you will know me as your personal tutor, or you may have...
Read more
Student Stories: Julia McLean
2 Comments
OCA Photography Program Leader Dan Robinson caught up with Julia McLean about her experience...
Read more
Artlab23 Collective
0 Comments
The aim of the Collective is to provide a mutually supportive environment which will...
Read more
OCA’s Online Degree Show Showcase 2023
0 Comments
Welcome to our online Degree Show Showcase 22/23 where we are celebrating a number...
Read more
This is such an interesting essay. It explains so much and opens up a wonderful new avenue of thought about art for me. It is essentially optomistic about the art of the 99%. It takes a long view of the art of the 1%, setting it in a historical context of “late capitalism” (almost before it has become history.) I found it fascinating. Art that is appreciated by an audience clearly communicates something that resonates with the viewer. I sometimes hear an artist bemoaning the fact that what sells is not what they really want to create. The art we produce that appeals to other artists is important here: it makes us a community of people supporting each other’s ideas and development. Here is a quote I’ve just read from the sketchbook group: A: You should do whatever follows your artistic imperative. B: Isn’t that the drink you have before you begin? Perhaps we of the lower end of the 99% have the freedom to have a laugh about it and not take ourselves as seriously as these millions-of-bucks guys. (and of course the occasional – very occasional- woman.) Josie Thomas
This is an interesting and thought provoking article and probably warrants a extensive discussion. In fact I am a bit out of my depth here but did want to comment. There is indeed the elite/wealthy 1% (probably even less) who have no concern about the value of money and so a few mil for a piece of art is spent as easily as most of us spend a few £’s. This has probably always been the case and I would like to believe that there is as much art available at much lower costs than from the few who are at the top.
So, I am not totally convinced that we are seeing a big change, maybe it is simply more visible and there are a few more with money to throw around. This happens in art as well as philately, collecting gold etc.
I think I am rambling so must end off – I did find this an interesting discussion and would like to see some more erudite comments than mine to help me along.
OCA should be ashamed to accept this article. The assumptions are dubious, false or unclear, the assertions unwarranted, the analysis trite, the reasoning flabby and the conclusion fuzzy and rhetorical. Maybe when Marco gets to secondary school he will learn that a fleeting acquaintance with Marxist theory and art history is not enough to make a coherent argument.
Barry – I would be interested to hear more of an explanation. You say ‘The assumptions are dubious, false or unclear, the assertions unwarranted, the analysis trite, the reasoning flabby and the conclusion fuzzy and rhetorical.’ Let’s hear some detailed critique.
Gareth, just a few comments.
A Hint of Bias
When the word ‘capitalism’ appears in a text this is an alert that the writer has prob a political agenda: either right wing lauding freedom of individual choice in the market or left wing condemning the exploitation of the many by the few. The reader can align their thoughts accordingly.
A Question of Values
“I want to look at the value of art consumed by the global elite…” He doesn’t. He glances at Bacon, is disgusted by Hirst and briefly mentions the irony in the purchase of ‘9%’ by Gursky. What he may mean is “the evaluation of art by the global elite..” Here the stereotypical capitalist serves its purpose: profit trumps valuing both people and works of art. For the elite art value = financial value where ” art objects, culture or social value become secondary” and “traditional art historical interpretations …become increasingly irrelevant” creating “a crisis of meaning at the top end of the market.”
We, the viewers, of art are not dummies, we don’t automatically think that monetary value means aesthetic value. In fact it is more likely to make us more sceptical – any confusion by the 1% is NOT a crisis of meaning for the 99% (the assumption of false consciousness). And contemporary art historians are not wedded to the art historical categories of tradition, they find modern art and the markets a fascinating rather than a vacuous field of study. The confusion here is between art appreciation and art history.
He Gets His Markets Confused
“Contemporary art is predominantly produced for and consumed by the top 1%” I read as ‘Of all contemporary art most is produced for…’but later he states “…only the works of a few handful of artists…are actually participating at the top end of the market.” So most contemporary artists are producing for the middle or bottom end of the art market – is this the global market or the local market and are the 1% involved in this or is art being produced for some of the 99%? Having established a false premise but seeking to extend the argument to create a parallel with the capitalist system he is forced to reduce the number of artists participating. And contradicts himself.
Promises Unfulfilled
We are to be rescued from the art crisis that isn’t by Marco’s stipulation that “…the production, dissemination and appreciation of art shall play a major social function (is that a prediction or a command?) and with its “cultural and social value” being in ” its ability to communicate.” Unfortunately as he doesn’t communicate any examples he fails his own test.
“What needs to be considered is how the economic inequality of late capitalism provoked the emergence of a new art…” There is no analysis of ‘how’.
Let me not be misunderstood. I am appalled by global inequalities of wealth and opportunity. I think some auction prices are absurd and obscene. And I think reforms and external regulation of financial markets are vitally important. But I also value clear, honest, cogent and coherent arguments rather than juvenile, confabulating political posturing.
Yours
BarryG
Thanks Barry. I am glad you have moved from criticising the author to the text.
I’ll just make two observations about your comments.
Firstly, I agree that when Marco uses terms such as ‘late capitalism’ that identifies him as commenting from a broadly left wing perspective. But the idea of unbiased art criticism is simply one that I do not recognise. We all comment from a perspective.
Secondly, in terms of promises unfulfilled, I think that Marco does give an example of the type of art whose value is in its ability to communicate ideas. It is the image by Mishka Henner. Possibly it could have been better signposted, but it is definitely there. Henner’s image has no obvious financial value – after all it is not even his original image, it is from Google Earth. But it communicates, to me at least, a very clear critical message about the way we produce food and treat the environment.
I am certainly not ashamed to have reproduced this post. Stimulating debate about what art is and why it might be important seems a reasonable enough thing for an art college to do.
Regards
Gareth
Dear Gareth,
Thanks for your comments. A few brief observations in response.
Firstly,unless one subscribes to a total relativist view then there are shared perceptions and facts to be apprised – what is rather than what should be. Without this anchor there can be no debate about art as everyone can decide what the facts are and scholarship becomes impossible – everyone can be right. Once facts are allowed in then an honest and empirical presentation is essential. A bias is a skewing of the facts by presenting only those that support an argument that misleads either consciously or unconsciously. Thus the importance of peer review. Whether, given the facts, a work succeeds is a subject for debate and whether it is liked or not is, of course, a personal matter. To find the grounds for valuation of a work, absent the facts, in personal preference is mere assertion.
Secondly, as for the work by Henner I have to challenge your view that this is an example of a work that communicates to the 99%. I, for one, do not understand it and, I’m sure, without more detailed contextualisation neither would most viewers.
Yours
Barry
An interesting article but I’m not convinced that ‘99% Art’ has such as strong influence over global structural change in the way that you advocate. I would argue that the current world economy seems very much alive given the far-reaching influence of global multi-national companies. Geopolitically, we do seem to be witnessing a power shift towards China reminiscent of the US and Japanese 20th century hegemonies.
Some light relief: this has got me thinking about Karl Popper….To paraphrase (badly):
“If 99% Art is not elitist. And advertising art is not (usually) sold at auction….then advertising art must be part of 99% art!” – whoa, too many Easter eggs! 😀
Thanks for posting this. It taps into modern anxieties about art and society in a provocative way. The widening gulf between the 1% and the 99% affects us all. I don’t think there can be enough debate about it.
“as for the work by Henner I have to challenge your view that this is an example of a work that communicates to the 99%.” – I don’t think that is what Gareth said at all. He says, “I think that Marco does give an example of the type of art whose value is in its ability to communicate ideas. It is the image by Mishka Henner” which is a rather different thing.
If only facts were unquestionable life would be so much easier but even if it can be agreed what actually is, then these things still have to be interpreted they do not speak for themselves and that interpretation will inevitably be coloured by the interpreter’s ideological stance. Modernism tendency to metanarratives and absolute certainties was untenable as I am sure was Postmodernism’s assertion that truth and even reality was arguable if not non-existent. However, it is if facts are unquestionable then scholarship, in the sense of informed interpretation and debate becomes unnecessary.
I find Bohr’s assertion that, “the art produced by and for the 99% acts as an agent advocating social change” highly debatable. I am not sure that art is made for anyone other than the maker and the idea that art can act as an agent for advocating change, social or otherwise is at best idealistic dreaming I fear but that the big money in the art market is part of the 1% is I think undeniable. The problem lies on the definition of ‘value’ I think. Neo-liberalism seems to have managed to totally conflate value with price to the point where Oscar Wilde’s idea that “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing” is perhaps more true than ever.