Culture Clicks: Weekly Art News Roundup
04Mar10
A detail of Tony Feher's "Take It Up With Tutt," at Pace/Wildenstein's booth for $150,000. Image via ARTINFO.
Bustling Armory Opening Heralds Contemporary Art Market Resurgence (ARTINFO)
The AI Interview: Alex Katz (ARTINFO)
Buyer of Giacometti Sculpture is Revealed (NY Times)
The Koons Collection (NY Times)
Anger and Angst, Explored with Animation by William Kentridge (NY Times)
At the Hammer, Louisa Lambri Makes Herself at Home (LA Times)
Richard Wyatt’s Reunion with His Youthful Art at the UCLA Fowler (LA Times)
New York Dealer Goldberg to Quit, Sell $10 Million of Art (Bloomberg)
Filed under: art market, auctions, collecting, contemporary art, Los Angeles, museums, New York, reviews | 1 Comment
Tags: 2010, Alex Katz, Armory, Giacometti, Goldberg, Hammer Museum, Jeff Koons, Lily Safra, Louisa Lambri, Richard Wyatt, William Kentridge
Well, Colleen, I don’t know you at all so don’t take this as an insult, but there are all kinds of resonas why one might be silenced. You could be an airhead, or a jerk. Or maybe the people you know are stupid jerks. I mean, I don’t know. How can you be sure you’re being silenced due to your gender? I’m pretty sure I don’t get invited to parties, not because I’m male, but because I’m an asshole.These are the kinds of things I think about. When I look at the art world, what I see is that almost everyone is excluded from the highest levels. Male and female. So the exact gender proportions at the top don’t worry me so much. What I want to know is, why these seven? A pickled shark seems pretty dumb to me, but it’s no dumber than a lot of things. Why is a dumb thing made by Hirst worth more than a dumb thing made by me? Or you? Or anyone else?My testicular comment was to point out that it’s not just because Damien is a guy. Because there are lots of guys making dumb stuff who aren’t worth zillions. And there are even some guys making good stuff who aren’t worth millions. Why Damien Hirst and not Larry Poons? Why Gerhard Richter and not Darby Bannard? Or whoever. Put in your own names.I mean, how many artists are working in the world today? Out of those, how many are making a living at it? One percent? Half a percent? To then quibble that that tiny, tiny percentage isn’t split evenly along gender lines seems petty to me. The question shouldn’t be, why not more women? It should be, why not more good, quality, artists? And not just exchanging them for “bad” artists we already have. I mean, why can’t more artists make a living? Just more?I understand it’s your thing, Joanne, or one of your things. Being an abstract artist probably doesn’t help you either. I bet you have a bunch of hurdles in your way! But I understand gender is one of your things and that’s okay. I’m not really trying to argue against that seriously. But I really do want you to think about your answer to my earlier question — and it doesn’t matter if you come up with an answer or tell it to me or anything, what matters, I think, is that you think about it — which is: What would full gender equality look like? Because until you get a handle on that, what are you fighting for?