 |
| William Powhida |
From what I understood from the
readings, or at least the first part, it is this generation’s one percent, who
basically decided the value of artwork. It sort of works full circle in a way,
where people with money, believe they know what modern art is; they pay
ridiculous amounts of money for mediocre pieces of art. This in turn effects
the art market by making popular what many don’t find esthetically pleasing but
however do find “artsy”. This then affects galleries, where the majority of art
pieces in galleries are aimed towards those same upper class individuals, where
the priority of these galleries is to sell. The idea here is to buy pieces that
are selling, popular mainstream pieces, overpricing the bad art at times and
centering the rest of your gallery on that idea.
This affects many artists,
especially in a city like New York, where artist now have to succumb and
produce mainstream art in order to survive in the artwork and pay the rent. My
initial impression was that, the artist themselves set the prices of artwork,
which I believe is true, but it is still dictated by the current art market.
The process being that the artist has a piece of art that he feels should sell
for one thousand dollars. However the current upper class values it at a much lower
price, because the piece isn’t popular right now; mainstream. Or that same
wealthy class doesn’t classify that piece under their standard of “modern” or
“artsy”. It’s definitely hard to say
that I fully disagree, because can you really blame them for trying to make
money; everyone in the end is trying to make a buck. It all comes down to who
takes advantage of the current situation, however it does suck that I have to
go to pay sometimes sixteen dollars for galleries and museums to have to see
crap art. Not that all the artwork is bad but some pieces now look as if a six
year old could have made it, but to each it’s own. When it comes to determining
the value [price] of artwork, there are many factors; I don’t believe there is
one overall deciding factor. Also with the current idea of what is “hot in the
market”, I don’t see any other way to price art rather then the current system.
For me it’s hard to stray away from the idea of supply and demand, the more
popular the item [idea of art], the higher the price. I do think the message of
the art should play a role, somewhere, messages of awareness, topic along those
lines, referring to the projects we did, I’d pay good money for pieces like
those.
I think art by William Powhida,
would be art I would pay good money for, of course I’m not trying to spend
thousands of dollars but I would pay a fair amount. In fact I don’t think I would
ever pay over one thousand for a piece of art unless it was for charity or had
to do with animals. The reason I would pay for work by Powhida is because I’ve
heard him speak, heard the genuineness of his art. His art is so blunt and he
shows no fear, and he becomes even more empowered with all the criticism that
he gets. He makes some difference, starts some controversy in the art world,
when he’s attacking the upper class or people in important positions. Besides,
his work makes me laugh, which is awesome, especially if I’m going to hang
these pieces up.
great!!!
ReplyDelete