self doubt? or not?

[GordonWilson]

okay, i wanna ramble about the embarrassment of everything... you know - kurt vonnegut wrote about that - about how so much of life is reaching that comfort level within ourselves.

this is gonna be all about me me me me me... pyschologists in the room: help me, please!

okay, so here's my situation: for the vast majority of my life, i've been a fairly left wingish philosophical activisty type western canadian douchebag who truly realizes that enlightenment comes easier when we're trying to do GOOD things with the world. i have always been pretty critical of the gross ills of all us humans- the wasting of the planet, the greed that keeps communities poor and starving, the way that people use "stuff" to make themselves feel better.

the irony through all of this is that for the past seven years or so, i was a bigtime dealer of fine art, which is ultimately (despite your love of good art) one of the most grossly materialistic and overpriced richkid toys there is...

but i liked my job. i liked being in the spotlight a lot, and i liked making a decent enough income that i could travel a lot, and spoil my parents and friends, and give my girlfriend the things she wanted... i didn't think i was the type, or ever would be the type, to gluttonously spend on frivilous shit, or to be irresponsible with my income...

nowadays, that inner embarrassment is even worse! the conflict i'd felt about being an art dealer has gotten into a whole new level... see, i quit the art gig, because i desperately hated the company. i was then offered a really awesome lecturing job, where essentially i am now a whore for the designer jewelry and fashion worlds!

like, what the fuck? gordo, what happened to that beautiful leftist "ohm"ish stance you are so used to taking on commercialism and materialism?!?!? now i'm truly in the belly of the beast...

here's the real mind-bender of it all: i'm really pretty happy with my life... i mean, i like me, and i have a beautiful love in my life, and generally i'm very peaceful within myself...

but this whole career vs. the good of the world thing is really doing my head in... like, in this system i just wanna do what i can with what i've got, and enjoy the ride, and blah blah blah. but it scares me, how convincing i can be, when i'm up there infront of a huge group of people, telling them about how wonderful diamonds are, when really i could give a crap if it were a cubic zirconia... i mean, who TRULY gives a shit? and WHY?

okay this was totally "stream of consciousness" stuff, with no outline or plan, so forgive me for being all over the place...

bwah bwah bwah, as my lisping israeli pal says.

[stilltrucking]

The magician Of Lublin
The Magican of Lublin
you could brick your self in with bricks of gold.

I say as so long you don't get "Porned" go with it.
interesting post about money and art and pornograhpy on Visual Arts.
I used to know a woman in atascadero she was a musician who wrote "they say I was a rebel until I reached the age of five, it was then that I got caught up in the struggle to survive"

she had a day job as a waitress, she called herself a social whore, made good money.

Tailored made Woman
"waiting on tables, waiting for the tables to turn"

[mtmynd]

Hey, Gordo...

First, it is nice seeing you around again.

I would say your dilemma is the same dilemma that most of us go thru in our social survival. We are all stuck to a wheel that requires money to keep it well-greased to function smoothly. But it is this 'smoothness' that sometimes causes us to over-do our survival with the end result being stress, (how much grease do we really need before our path becomes too slippery?).

The adage, "It's easy to go up but hard to come down" is what's basically at stake... when our egos are bringing us joy and happiness, all is good with the world and conversely, when our egos are causing us doubt and confusion, we don't see ourselves in a very good light and begin questionng our path. Up and down, in and out, over and under we go... trying to maintain an equilibrium in our lives and minds.

I think your assessment of fine art, "is ultimately... one of the most grossly materialistic and overpriced richkid toys there is..." may be a bit overly dramatic. Art collectors are two-fold (yin/yang), too. One buys the art for the love of the piece... perhaps the story behind it, while another purchases art strictly for the investment opportunity. I don't believe you know the collector/purchaser well enough to distinguish between the two, but one thing is for sure - whichever side the are on, they are willing to purchase, which in turn pays your own bills - a joint effort in maintaining 'social survival", wouldn't you say? (This would also apply to your current line of work... as long as you are selling a diamond as a diamond and not a cz!)

Maybe the guilt or doubt you currently have is based upon the overdoing of such 'deals'... only you can answer that one. Maybe this cycle of wheeling and dealing is making you a bit dizzy and it may be a time to re-gear yourself to a more manageable lifestyle... again that is something that only you can answer. I offer it only as a suggestion and perhaps a possibility that may reduce the doubts and confusions that seem to be creating your current mood.


Good luck and thanks for sharing a bit of your mind,

Cecil

[GordonWilson]

gotta debate ya, just slightly:

" I don't believe you know the collector/purchaser well enough to distinguis between the two"

that is not correct. i know the angle you're taking and we could go back and forth on this one for hours, i am sure... believe me sir, when i tell you, i know about art collecting... i know all the types - people who buy for love of art, people who buy for investment, people who buy because they think it somehow improves their social status...

in any case, perhaps i was a little dramatic, but by being a part of the largest privately owned art gallery in the world, and having literally hundreds of thousands of collectors and opinions pass by my desk in the past decade, my bitterness and dramatic take on the scene is warranted, well thought out, and quite accurate.

certainly my viewpoint in this topic is rooted in a leftist philosophy... i believe that on the high-end collector's level, art is a ridiculous issue. here are some examples or reasons for my view, as well as some clarifications:

1) why is it that the agent, the dealer, and the gallery make more money off a piece of art, than the artist who painted it? this isn't a rare case, it's the vast majority rule in the art world.

2) why would ANYONE pay 82 million dollars for van gogh's portrait of dr.paul gachet? did you know that you could go to downtown manila in the philipinnes and have an EXACT replica painted for you, stroke by stroke with exact colors, for about 80 bucks? why must we have "THE ORIGINAL"? copies can be made for a fraction of the cost, yet the economic elite insist on using artworks as a status symbol to slide their millions around, when those millions could have been used for incredibly more beneficial things for the globe.

3) do you know what makes an artwork an investment? popularity. not talent. for at least 200 years, an artist's fame and success have been based almost exclusively on WHO they know, rather than what they know, or the talent they possess. jackson pollock would have been a nobody wife-beating alcoholic if peggy guggenheim hadn't taken a pitiful fancy on him and exposed him to her snobbish rich friends... art companies today, with the reach and the financial power, MAKE artists. they produce them, print them, market them, and VIOLA! - the artist is a famous, talented, INVESTMENT. it's a huge crock of shit. in all of the artists i sold and read about in all of the art news magazines, i thought perhaps five percent of them had more talent than my next door neighbor, and deserved success just as much.

blah blah blah... i gotta go to work, but i'd love to pick this up again sometime...

oh yeah, and on some of your other comments - ... perhaps. certainly some food for thought. except on the "dubious business" tonality - my only saving grace in this business is that i don't bullshit or lie to make the sale... i just find some aspect of the items that i like, and spread that passion... again, blah blah blah!



take care, cecil. best to soo and the boy,

g

[GordonWilson]

i love van gogh. didn't mean to give the wrong impression on that one... i can really get into appreciating a lot of art history, and many famous artists for their talent. he was one of the most talented and misunderstood geniuses in history.

[knip]

hey gordo...nice to see you around

i don't know...extremish maybe? i have no problem with guys spending 82 mil on art if that's what they want...of course they gotta have the 82 mil to start with, which i also have no problem with, providing it gets sliced first in whatever manner society agrees upon (taxed, i mean)

i know many people who had no problem spending money until they spent it all...then they ran out and became altruistic about it

[abcrystcats]

OK, Gordy, I also have to dispute some of the things you're beating yourself up for, here.

What about protection, preservation and appreciation of these pieces of fine art? Isn't that in the least bit important in all this? People who make a significant financial investment in an original artwork are highly likely to care for that work and either pass it on or sell it to people with similar interests. Not every work of art can be in a museum. Most museums are overflowing with excess art and artifacts that never go on display before the public. It is best that some works be privately owned and traded so that at least some people can enjoy them. The market dictates that the most admired pieces go to the highest bidders. Anything wrong with that?

As far as this thing you've got with "popularity" -- 200 years? What are you thinking? Popularity has ALWAYS dictated what works of art are significant and what works are not -- except in cases where totalitarian regimes tell EVERYONE what to think! You seem to be so concerned with the social good, and yet here are you are using this fact about popularity of art as if it were something disparaging and shameful. It's not. People can decide what they like. That is the entire history of art. You're being an elitist about this.

Do people need to have originals? No. I have purchased several posters of fine art pieces and had them done up to like real paintings (you know, the texturing thing they do) at framing stores a few hundred dollars apiece. However, I'll tell you right now that if I was rich enough to get ahold of an original Leighton or Waterhouse, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Wouldn't we all?

Worrying about why the artist doesn't get as much as the distributor or dealer is like worrying why Canada isn't Cuba. There isn't anything you can do about that. If you think there is, then I suggest you do it, but if the artist continues to produce new works under this system, then they are probably doing it for the joy of the creation. If they don't get out of the system, then where is the evil? No one is making them produce art for sale in this market, and every market has middlemen who are experts at doing things that the crafters of the merchandise cannot do. If an artist can sell their own works (and I know some who have done this, and well) then they eliminate these inequities for themselves. Artists make art. Sellers sell. It is two different areas of expertise, so gimme a break! Both need to be remunerated for their contributions.

Philosophically, I think "do no evil" is the best system when it comes to working in any field, these days. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't exploit the unknowing. Frankly, I find it's damn hard to find a decently paying job that doesn't force you into some form of dishonesty or evildoing against your fellowmen. I think being an art dealer is one of the highest, most honorable careers out there. You are actively involved in the preservation and enjoyment of beautiful works of genius. You put them in the hands of new caretakers and that saves them for future generations.

I think you're being overly delicate in examining your career and you ought to give yourself a huge break. On the other hand, I hear the Peace Corps is accepting volunteers. If you really feel you ought to do more, then eschew your materialism altogether and go do it.

[mtmynd]

good reply, Gordo!

Re: Van Gogh's "Dr. Paul Gachet" in and of itself has quite a history going for it, if I remember correctly. As we may agree, paintings, as all artwork for that matter, have a 'life of their own' and there are those collectors that take on a responsibility to safeguard the 'life of the art' and do so at great cost, obviously. I'll also agree that there must be a potential of profit somewhere down the line, but only providing that the said work of art is kept in excellent condition... another added expense to the piece itself. For a collector/investor to spend millions of dollars on a piece shows the value placed on the piece, does it not? Add to that expense the necessary insurance and security for the work... it all adds up.

In the case of Van Gogh's piece, where does the $82 million go? The moeny filters down to a certain extent amongst the auction house, the previous owner(s), the banks and their principals... eventually going out to their creditors and down the line to the grocery stores and clothing stores... etc, etc.. It's a trickle down effect that some would argue is unfair, but our world is unfair.

I do get annoyed as an artist when a gallery wants a 40/60 cut on an artists work. That is utterly ridiculous and simply causes the particular piece to cost more... many times too prohibitive for the consumer to purchase, thus leaving both the artist and galley without a sale. But such is the present day climate and our need to maintain our social survival.

The most difficult thing I have found as a struggling artist is pricing my pieces. How much am I willing to take over how much do I think it is worth? Can I include the time made to create the piece? How about the years spent painting, learning techniques and developing my own style..? As you are aware, any piece of art, just as any thing, is only as valuable as what someone is willing to pay. If somebody offered me 100 times what I expected to get for a piece, believe me I would take it in a hearbeat! Is that somehow cheating the buyer or simply exchanging a piece of art for money that was agreeable to both parties? That is commerce and whether others deem it to be bullshit, in all honesty they have no say-so in what one is willing to buy or sell to another, no matter the price.

"It's the vast majority rule in the art world," and that is the way it has always been, has it not? True, an artist can go hawk their art on the streets, leaving out the middle man, and may find happiness in doing so. But it is the middle man that takes the biggest gamble when they market the art, pay their staff, pay their storefront expenses, the insurance, the utilities, the taxes, etc, etc... and not always show any profit from their gamble. There are those middle men that are much more successful than others, the "cream of the crop" so to speak, that have the marketing skills that make the consumer want the product... something many an artist of any persuasion would like to have behind them.

Perhaps you would like to market my art, eh? I know you'd be fair seeing as you know the struggle we artists go through... My art is my identity... my own voice masterfully done, if I say so myself, Gordo. We could take the risk with the rewards of a materially comfortable life awaiting the both of us.

Cecil

[GordonWilson]

hey mtmynd and abcry,

interesting comments... my rant has made me out to be a bitter person with nothing but negative feelings for the world of fine art... such is not true though, so maybe i gave the wrong impression...

your comments are all valid, and well prepared, and i enjoyed reading them. i should definitely exercise more positivity in all areas, and perhaps my take on the world of art needs some lightening up.

i guess i've been embittered by a corporate giant. i'm sorry if this sounds elitist or patronizing, but both of your forgiving tones toward the system governing the art world just makes me think you don't have the same kind of experiences... perhaps there are SOME really nice people running the show, but when it comes to the "big show" of the art industry, the major players make me tired... it just feels to me that the integrity of "art" has been sacrificed in the name of big business.

yes, abcrystcats, it's been a popularity game for more than 200 years... indeed, good call on that. but what i was intending to say is that back before then, in the days of the rococo and neoclassics and even before them, the renaissance, art success was founded on extraordinary talent. as soon as photographs were developed, that idea has been thrown out the window.

bwah bwah bwah. your comments are all welcome and appreciated... i guess i've just been cast into darkness by seeing the "inside" - the dark underbelly - of the art industry... and believe me, it's not nice. all i can say to add to that, in an attempt to convince you of the validity, is that ALL of my peers in the industry share my bitterness.

[abcrystcats]

oh, yes ... every corporate enterprise (and many smaller ones) have a "dark underbelly." That is why your part within them is so very important. We all live within the evil beast of human society, and we can only fight back by sticking up for our own principles within it. The thing is to not let of those principles and do what others do just because there's money in it. It's a tough balancing act ...

[perezoso]

You said it seester! Merry X-mass

[GordonWilson]

well said, ab