Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Starting Tonight at SIFF: The Women… | NAACP Protecting a Black Man's Righ… »

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Visual Art Should We List Prices With Art Reviews?

Posted by Jen Graves on Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:31 PM

This painting, along with every other not titled, 36-by-36-inch black-and-white painting by Lauri Chambers that I wrote about in last weeks paper, costs $5,000 to buy but its free to see them at Francine Seders Gallery in Phinney Ridge. We only mentioned free, not $5,000. Does it make any difference to you that its $5,000?

Courtesy of the artist and Francine Seders Gallery
This painting, along with every other not titled, 36-by-36-inch black-and-white painting by Lauri Chambers that I wrote about in last week's paper, costs $5,000 to buy but it's free to see them at Francine Seders Gallery in Phinney Ridge. We only mentioned free, not $5,000. Does it make any difference to you that it's $5,000?

As a sidebar to my manifesto about buying art in this winter's edition of A&P, I wrote about a subject that gets discussed even less often: critics and prices.

It's one of the conventions of art criticism: Thou shalt not talk about art in terms of money. There are good reasons for this, one being that the price of a work of art can be genuinely irrelevant information. There is a stark dividing line between looking at art (which is almost always either free or affordable and imparts its own kind of experiential value) and possessing art.

Theater and music writers list how much a performance will cost, while art critics list prices for admission, not possession. When you buy a museum ticket, your eyes are renting art you can't buy—the art in museums is neither for sale nor could you likely afford it if it were. At art galleries, admission is free, but the difference from museums is that you have the option to buy. Still, even when I write about a gallery show, I don't tell you how much pieces cost. It's just a standard of the profession: Art critics don't list art prices.

But would it be a bad thing for art and artists if the line between looking and possessing were less stark? What about for audiences? As art critics, do we implicitly support a system built on inequity when we leave out information that would point to the fact that most people can only afford to vicariously experience what certain people can take home and live with? Or is even entertaining that thought inviting more trouble than it's worth? (Capitalism begins unraveling in the mind...)

A few months ago, noticing that an artist was showing powerful works that were also extraordinarily affordable, I broke my silence and mentioned at the end of a piece of writing that, by the way, those great pieces only cost $300. Did I violate a rule I should have followed? Should The Stranger (and A&P) change our policy and list prices with art reviews? Would it mean anything, or change anything, if we did?

FacebookShare

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Nah. Some of the stuff I bought for $10 is worth tens of thousands now, since the artist became famous.

And some stuff that people "value" at millions is .. drek.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on January 23, 2013 at 2:44 PM

I think it increases the value of the journalism as it delivers more relevant information useful to (at least some) readers. If nothing else, we (the readers, art gallery visitors, and sometimes purchasers) gain the value of developing reference prices the more accustomed we become to having pricing information available. I would prefer that the information not distract from the narrative of the gallery review, so if it is easy to include things like pricing information in aside, links, mouseover text, or some other kind of metadata or something like that, that might be preferred.

Posted by Valpey on January 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Sure. When I saw Cy Twombly's tube (almost bumped it over) at a Chelsea gallery years ago, and then saw the price ($2M+), I have since become fascinated with Twombly, or at least the narrative that has elevated his work to such extremes. The artworld is after all at least as much about money and egos as it is about objects or theory.

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2001/twom…

Posted by aardvark on January 23, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Um, setting aside weird things like the global art market and philosophical discomfort with valuation of art, I would call your attention to this:

Artists need to eat.

Especially in your local beat, as it were, noting prices could actually help artists sell more pieces. Most of your readers are probably not in galleries often and may not have any idea what art costs. If I saw something striking in one of your Slog posts and saw that it was $300, I might be interested. And I'm going to see your Slog posts far more often than I'm going to get to a gallery.

I wouldn't advocate for printing a price for every piece you show. But when you talk about a particular show, mentioning a general price range might be a good idea.

We pay for great music by great bands and great books by great authors. But for those things, it's trivial to find out prices instantly and moreover we all have a pretty good idea for what they'll cost. But when I see art in the Stranger I literally have no clue if it's $500 or $50,000, and it's not easy to find out.

Help artists eat. Don't be bashful.

Posted by John Scott Tynes

on January 23, 2013 at 4:59 PM

My favorite part of art is seeing how much wealth/value an artist can create out of a few dollars worth of raw materials (paint, canvas) and some time/talent.

Posted by Westlake, son! on January 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM

The most powerful reason to list the price is precisely because of the stigma you mentioned... that art is mostly seen as something you look at in a fancy museum or a pretentious gallery, *not* something you own. If everyone listed prices, more people might get the *idea* that art is something you can actually buy! Startups like "getartup.com" and "thezibit.com" might also help change this attitude.

Posted by Katina Glauser on January 23, 2013 at 6:42 PM

price is relevant when price is interesting. Like; oh the city paid 200 grand for those 5 bronze salmon. Or this local boy made good by selling however many pieces in this bluechip price range. [I wish there was much more of this kind of writing; the lack thereof makes me suspect]
But including prices on things to "feed artists" as the earlier commenter pointed out is just some kind of advertising; I generally hate advertising.

Posted by carsten coolage on January 23, 2013 at 7:00 PM

Artists may need to eat but they do not need to eat by selling art. There are other things to do and most artists do them in order to eat.

Posted by sarah70 on January 23, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Educating us on the existence of money can only be good.

Posted by susan chr on January 24, 2013 at 12:49 AM

@WiS for the "Self-aggrandizing bullshit post of the day" award.

Posted by Dr_Awesome on January 24, 2013 at 5:56 AM

Girl, girl, get that cash
If it's 9 to 5 or shakin' your ass
Ain't no shame, ladies do your thing
Just make sure you ahead of the game ~Missy Elliot

Posted by alpha unicorn

on January 24, 2013 at 10:15 AM

The game of the "art world" is all about commodities. Anyone denying that is under some illusion.

There is a an actual world of great art (and bad) and aesthetic experiences that don't get commodified or mixed with the galleries, egos, and personalities with the art world. Those experiences can be written about freely and there is plenty of insight from outside the art world. Narratives are there, ideas are there, but the ego and the $ are not part of the foundation.

In order to be a professional artist or critic, you must play the commodities game, which is something you do, perhaps not as openly as you admit. It's about making money and playing art at the same time. Don't be dishonest about it. Embrace it and tell everyone about the price tags and the egos behind them- the artists, the galleries, the typical buyers. Don't be so coy. Or continue to, but know you are doing it. It's a big commercial - shit is for sale. Everyone is in it for the money as much as any other part.

Posted by aardvark on January 24, 2013 at 10:48 AM

@sarah70- I think most artists would prefer that weren't the case.

I have wondered about prices in previous posts and would love to view the art with that element added. It's good to know what artists and galleries are asking. Sometimes it's baffling. I do feel that pricing art is a game. A game I have pondered a lot and still remain unsure of. If I had to guess- there are probably as many levels to it as there are artists. It's always of interest, though.

Sometimes it's a pleasant surprise, when you realize there is art that you admire that is affordable. I do wonder how much impact a slog post about some affordable art might have. Would they sell a couple? A dozen? More? Get picked up by a gallery? Double their prices?

Posted by Marph on January 24, 2013 at 12:21 PM

I would think if it's relevant to the story, like "painting found in attic... " or "sudden surge in interest in a particular artist," then yes. Otherwise, we have all the information we need, what gallery they're shown in, their website, etc., to find out ourselves. Personally, I'm more interested in your reaction to the art, what's in your head. I don't really care if it's worth $5 or $50,000.

Posted by FMatamoros on January 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM