Painting From Life vs. From Photos
Art dealers are not shop keepers. As Edward Winkleman writes, “Saying a dealer is just a shopkeeper might make someone feel superior, but it hardly accurately describes the job.”
Why do I say dealers are artists? Well, try this: come up with a definition of what artist means today (a serious definition) that will encompass conceptual artists and installation artists and others working in non-traditional media, and I think you will find that it is hard to exclude dealers, at least the better ones, from the category of artist. Dealers can make art from objects that would not be considered art otherwise. Dealers create a program in the medium of art, the program itself is art.
‘Artist’ is generally considered to be an honorable title, for someone who does it well. Why then are the dealers not rushing to claim label? I notice a pretty conspicuous silence, in fact. What’s the deal?
Here is my guess: dealers don’t need to claim the title of artist, because they already have the substance, the power of artists. Calling themselves artists would create some awkwardness — it would put all those other artists in the dealer’s program into an almost assistant-like position, explicitly. Why agitate the artists more than necessary? Also, calling themselves artists would open the dealers up to a whole class of art criticism that is avoided by declining the title, ‘artist’.
If dealers are artists, it poses a challenging question to self-proclaimed artists: Why am I not also using art as a medium? If art dealing is an art form — and a pretty important one — then why are we letting the dealers have all the fun?
I realize that some artists sell their own work, but that doesn’t make them art dealers in and of itself; also, I realize that some dealers do explicitly proclaim themselves as artists (e.g., painters) but that is not what I am discussing here, obviously.
Artists do use art as a medium when they put together and present bodies of their own work.
This is obviously an important part of selling art.
Arthur,
Thanks for that important point. For example, artists putting together an art website. Or putting together their own show because they don’t have a dealer to do it for them.
Artists do use art as a medium, but it is not central to the conception of making art (e.g., as a painter) in the way that it is for the dealer. As you write, it is generally considered as a means to an end (selling) but not an end in itself. This is why the dealer is an artist, and not just a shop keeper, because the program is seen as an art form in its own right.
‘Artist’ is generally considered to be an honorable title, for someone who does it well. Why then are the dealers not rushing to claim label?
Okay, so these two guys walk into a
barbank to apply for credit cards. When they fill out the forms, under “profession”, one lists “artist” and the other “art dealer”…Dealers work with art in various ways, but the essence of being a dealer is that they sell art. There are many important and honorable aspects of that activity I won’t bother detailing, but they are more or less orthogonal to creating “visual representations of that which people find important at an emotional level.”
That said, it seems plausible that the best dealers will have such a good understanding of art that they could be artists, even if they aren’t actively. They need to be able to speak about art with authority to both public and artists.
…it seems plausible that the best dealers will have such a good understanding of art that they could be artists…
I think you could turn this around and make an even more compelling argument. That the best (and by this I mean most financially successful) artists are the ones that have such a good understanding of the business that they could be dealers.
David,
That’s a good point, and relates to something I was just wondering about. Namely, do artists make the best appreciaters of other people’s art? I suspect the best often do, and those are the ones who could also be good dealers. But some artists may be too narrowly focused on their own work and their own kind of work. I wonder how that plays out in general.
There are many important and honorable aspects of that activity I won’t bother detailing, but they are more or less orthogonal to creating “visual representations of that which people find important at an emotional level.”
Steve,
I meant to comment earlier that last week’s definition of art is not in effect for this post (since all it did was confuse and annoy people).
The definition of art for this post is: art is that impossible to define something that we all love can’t explain — i.e., the standard definition, which is none.
Okay,
I see from the comments above that no one is buying my idea for this week either. Okay, fine, I don’t care. It is a good idea and I’ve been so busy thinking about it that I haven’t even been blogging so much.
But remember, you heard it here first: dealers are artists, their medium is art.
Arthur raised an important point, that artists do work with the medium of art sometimes, for example, when putting their work together for presentation. What I have noticed when I do this myself is that I often understand the work for the first time, or I see it in a whole new way. This is why I feel there is an entire art form that dealers specialize in, because this is such an important activity. Dealers also sell, but traditional artists used to do that also, more often than now. So the fact that dealers are engaged in selling hardly disqualifies them as artists. If anything, it weakly supports the classification.
…all it did was confuse and annoy people
That’s an art in itself :)
…you heard it here first: dealers are artists, their medium is art.
Curators are artists too, as are critics. No wonder the artworld is so crowded. If someone’s just an artist they seem to be at a real disadvantage.
David,
For me the most important take-home message is that I want to focus a lot more on “art as a medium.”
Dealers work by selecting and juxtaposing objects like paintings and photos. There is huge power in doing this. We have seen some of it here with Leslie’s Hello Kitty series. There you have a juxtaposition within the pictures, but also a juxtaposition of the different paintings. I think a lot of the power comes in the latter.
Another example of using art as a medium is Steve’s interview with you. The presentation of the artwork, flowing with a chronological narrative, was powerful.
Curators and critics can do this also, in their own professional contexts.
If someone’s just an artist they seem to be at a real disadvantage.
I know that you are saying this is a humorous context, but I think there is something in what you are saying. It is as though artists have ceded some part of what they do.