Public vs. valuable. Art is rapidly being sold, resold and made available around the globe. A local audience might lose art in the trade, others gain. The market determines distribution of art, sorted by availability of wealth. Art has always accompanied wealth. This way art is truly getting global, and at the same time getting local. Globalization makes audiences mobile. Art attracts tourist and revenue. Still, art is becoming local for those who live within bubbles of wealth. Like for those living in Oslo, Copenhagen, London or Los Angeles. Top art objects are put into museums around the wealthiest parts of the world, thus becoming of less relevance to the global audience. Digitalization could change some of this. The Internet has become the new gallery making art available to everybody here and now. How could this influence art? The low status of street-art visualizes the cost of a noncommercial perspective: availability to everybody, anywhere. By depicting decaying art, Damien Hirst (!!) is really challenging appreciation of art, also economically. Hard sell! The iconic pieces of art gain value from exposure while the “average” piece of art risk becoming a digital commodity. Thereby it might lose some of its financial attraction? The other argument is that the digital art consumer is also a potential buyer of art and availability increases demand.
OBSERVINGART: People need art, arts need an audience! This is an international blog about art and art events. It is based on enthusiasm and is non commercial. Posts are observations by me or others: this blog is open for input from artists, galleries, museums, auctioneers, dealers, collectors, experts and others reachning for a global audience. Contribute by spreading the work: like, subscribe or share! You can also follow OBSERVINGART on Twitter and Instagram.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Observingarts: art as a commodity
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment