One of the ugly truths I've begun accepting in a belated flail towards adulthood is this: if there's a significant cash advantage in manipulating a situation, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the situation is being manipulated.
Lisa Hunter comments at Edward Winkleman's blog that
...many CEOs sit on museum boards, where they influence what will be shown in museums (thus raising the profiles and value of their favored artists), while simultaneously being able to buy the emerging artists that curators identify as the next big thing.I've always suspected this but had nothing more to go on. I'll have to hit up Lisa for more info.
This comment was in response to a posting about art as investment, a topic I find interesting if only because investors wield disproportionately great power in our culture. They induce a whirlwind of decidedly mixed emotions.
I resent their ability to distort just about everything they touch. Apparently I still harbor adolescent notions that art can be inherently pure, because investor influence in the art world offends me personally; it feels like the defilement of a sacred realm. Simultaneously I have to face the fact that investors have done a lot of good in the world, and also that it would probably be a fairly irresistible blast to have them interested in your work.
This, ladies and gents, is a travesty. Thanks, Lisa! Sphere: Related Content