Safer vs. Saltz | Two Sides of the Same Art Market
Yesterday evening, 60 Minutes, the long-running news program from CBS, aired a segment from Morley Safer entitled Art Market (shown in the video above). In the broadcast, Mr. Safer attempted to unfold the inner workings of the art market using Miami’s Art Basel art fair as the back-drop to state his case. In the 13 minute segment, Safer strolls around the fair with an air of cynicism, asking rhetorical questions on the value of certain pieces of art and making comparisons between the art market and various financial markets that most of us are familiar with. Safer also speaks to a motley crew of market players ranging from collectors like Eli Broad to top gallerists and art dealers such as Jeffrey Deitch and Larry Gagosian. The entire segment seemed to aim at the conspicuous sales side of the art market, while mocking the possibility of a more altruistic take on what art means to society and humanity as a whole.
Shortly after the airing of the segment, Jerry Saltz, arguably one of the most well known voices in the art world, wrote an article entitled Jerry Saltz on Morley Safer’s Facile 60 Minutes Art-World Screed. Mr. Saltz’ take on the 60 Minutes segment was one of disdain, highlighting the fact that Mr. Safer did not venture too far from his previous 60 Minutes segment from 1993, entitled Yes…But is it Art?, which also cast a fairly negative light on the art world. According to Mr. Saltz, Mr. Safer “delivered cliche after cliche,” highlighting points that have been littered across various Internet art blogs and prominent media outlets. In Mr. Saltz’ opinion, Mr. Safer did not “really [look] at art, [he] focused on the distraction, on celebrity, cash, and crassness […] He’s now doing the same thing: Spotting the obvious […] He’s not finding his own taste.” In essence, the scope of Mr. Safer’s segment on the art market was too narrow and subjective for Mr. Saltz’ liking.
While Mr. Safer’s segment could be seen as slightly subjective and narrow, couldn’t Mr. Saltz’ piece be seen as slightly skewed too? And if so, who could really say that either gentleman is right or wrong? While Mr. Saltz does do a good job of acknowledging the speculative side of the art market as well as making nods to its altruistic core, the tone of his piece suggests that Mr. Safer’s perspective is somehow wrong or inaccurate. Yes, Mr. Safer did focus heavily on the speculative, more aggressively sales-driven side of the art market without giving the altruistic side much merit. But is that not within his right to have a specific perspective? And more importantly, can we really suggest that what he depicted was entirely wrong or inaccurate? We have seen, through countless articles and blog posts, that there is, in fact, a heavily speculative aspect to the art market. And even more than being within Mr. Safer’s right to report on this more “financially-driven” side of the art world, is it not within his self interest?
Yes, Mr. Safer’s segment was seemingly slanted; but, keep in mind, Mr. Safer’s segment appears on 60 minutes, a nationally broadcasted program on CBS network. While 60 minutes probably does have viewership that resides in the upper-income brackets of society that may include individuals who understand both the speculative and altruistic nature of the art market, it seems more likely that the majority of the 60 minutes audience is represented by the mass of america, which is largely made up of “working class” citizens who are more worried about “making ends meet” than the true intrinsic value of a Gerhard Richter painting.
60 minutes, like all programming, must meet their networks “bottom line” requirements which always comes down to viewership - a component that, when high enough, can command top advertising dollars. So yes, much of the information Mr. Safer spoke of seems “cliche” to those who are abreast of the happenings in the art market, but for the working class citizens who make up mainstream America, especially those still reeling from the effects of the financial downturn, the success of the art market could be seen as just another layer - albeit a decadent one - to the financial stories that have graced the mainstream airwaves since the 2008 bailout. In essence, Mr. Safer, in accordance with his network, was appealing to the “world view” of the majority base of his audience; hence, the reason Mr. Safer seemed to make numerous comparisons between the art market and the financial world.
That being the case, art, like any other market, is indeed speculative in nature. For the most part, if you own a computer or mobile phone in which you are able to read this post, you are most likely one of the lucky few who exist in a post-needs society where food, water, shelter, and most of the basic necessities of life are covered. Thus, everything beyond these “needs,” from a psychological or even philosophical perspective, can be perceived as wants. And if we are addressing wants, then it’s also reasonable to say that the meaning or value we place on these wants are driven by our subjective desires to fulfill some type of psychological benefit which has meaning to each of us on an individual level. There is no culling process behind these psychological “desires,” and for any market to function successfully there shouldn’t be. The articulation of desires in the form of wants drives demand and causes the value for products, services, or, in this case, art works, to fluctuate widely and differ from art collector to art collector.
On the other hand, art, unlike many other markets, acknowledges its more altruistic side too. In addition to speculative or egotistical motives, art is also bought so that it may be housed in a museum to be looked upon as an integral part of our collective human history. This type of art is enjoyed by many different types of people, not just the wealthy who wish to speculate or own it as a status symbol. And what Mr. Safer’s segment didn’t show, was these aforementioned “types of people;” the art enthusiasts who flock to Art Basel and other art fairs and openings to indulge in the aesthetic stimulation that art provides - whether those enthusiasts could actually purchase an art work or not. Indeed, Mr. Safer’s segment did not show the Basel attendees and art market players who engage in the art world purely for the love of art (art for art’s sake). How different would Mr. Safer’s segment have been if he had also shown various types of people (children included), enjoying the plethora of independent fairs or pop-up galleries that spring forth during the 4-day event? Or show the quiet walk of emotional introspection through the halls of a collector’s private collection?
In the end, Mr. Safer’s segment shed a rather cynical light on the speculative side of the art market, and Mr. Saltz facetiously admonished him for doing so while highlighting the missing, more altruistic elements. However, in my opinion, both the speculative and altruistic sides of art play an important role in the formation of the art market. For example, in his segment, Mr. Safer mentioned, with much distaste, that “art speak, the descriptive language of contemporary art, could seem as opaque as spilled alphabet soup.” A response to an enthusiastic art dealer who, in the segment, was shown to be providing an intellectualized articulation of an art work to a prospective buyer. This altruistic side of art, more than just the philosophical support for art’s existence, can be seen as the language of art commerce, one of the many reasons why I believe both sides go hand-in-hand. Whether it’s more speculative or altruistic, the proverbial “light” that you decide to shed on the art market really depends on you, the individual, and what type of value you are seeking to extract from engaging in the art world.
posted by Kwasi Gyasi of MyUberLife
2 Notes