I was all ready to go to town on the couple featured in this article in today's SF Chron. "Art collector couple builds museum-size cave in Napa for collection." That's a private collection and private cave by the way, so we are inevitably subjected to outrageous and inflammatory ditties such as this:
Collectors tend not to allow visitors outside elite ranks to view their collections - even if they happen to belong to a museum's general membership base - because such guests are often not well-versed enough in art to understand or appreciate what they are seeing.
As a member of the unwashed masses spoken of here who enjoy art galleries but apparently aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate what is being presented, yes, I was offended. But after finishing the article, the indignation I felt when I started the article was gone. Beyond finding the owners, though filthy rich, somewhat affable and socially conscious, I was left with the impression that they are buying and treasuring works of art they really love, regardless of stature. So shoot me now, I think I'm on board with their building of a private place where they can truly "commune" with their beautiful pieces. Why not?
And if you're already giving back and you've still got money, as well as style (rarer and rarer these days), why not do something spectacular? How frikken cool is this?
But if I were them, I wouldn't have agreed to publicizing anything. No matter how charming they might be, there is just no way to get rid of the bad taste in one's mouth that accompanies articles like this. For some it is sparked by simple jealousy, but for most I think it is definitely classist notions -- on both sides of the fence. Generally, some moneyed elitists (and pretentious art students) crow that commoners are too stupid to truly understand art, while many commoners expect that these same folks -- because of their money, and thus, access -- should curate and generally foot the bill for our art appreciation endeavors.
That said, it is sad these pieces aren't being curated by the owners and placed in a beautiful space for all to enjoy. I am one of the notion that art should be shared, and I've always advocated that artists have responsibilities to the public once they start making statements about their art. But is it just too easy to say collectors have a responsibility to share these works, simply because they can and choose not to?
Collectors tend not to allow visitors outside elite ranks to view their collections - even if they happen to belong to a museum's general membership base - because such guests are often not well-versed enough in art to understand or appreciate what they are seeing.
As a member of the unwashed masses spoken of here who enjoy art galleries but apparently aren't sophisticated enough to appreciate what is being presented, yes, I was offended. But after finishing the article, the indignation I felt when I started the article was gone. Beyond finding the owners, though filthy rich, somewhat affable and socially conscious, I was left with the impression that they are buying and treasuring works of art they really love, regardless of stature. So shoot me now, I think I'm on board with their building of a private place where they can truly "commune" with their beautiful pieces. Why not?
And if you're already giving back and you've still got money, as well as style (rarer and rarer these days), why not do something spectacular? How frikken cool is this?
But if I were them, I wouldn't have agreed to publicizing anything. No matter how charming they might be, there is just no way to get rid of the bad taste in one's mouth that accompanies articles like this. For some it is sparked by simple jealousy, but for most I think it is definitely classist notions -- on both sides of the fence. Generally, some moneyed elitists (and pretentious art students) crow that commoners are too stupid to truly understand art, while many commoners expect that these same folks -- because of their money, and thus, access -- should curate and generally foot the bill for our art appreciation endeavors.
That said, it is sad these pieces aren't being curated by the owners and placed in a beautiful space for all to enjoy. I am one of the notion that art should be shared, and I've always advocated that artists have responsibilities to the public once they start making statements about their art. But is it just too easy to say collectors have a responsibility to share these works, simply because they can and choose not to?
Labels: art, class issues
posted by Ammie at 2:07 PM
7 Comments:
Those doors are just begging to be hit by a mortar round. FREE THE ART!
Hmm..you know, it does leave a slightly bad taste (and perhaps ayn rand has infected me through osmosis as I have only sold her books, but have not read them), but I tend to think that while it is supremely cool for art collectors to share art with all, they really don't have any social responsibility to do so. That shit is their private property, so they can burn it, share it, hide it underground, whatever. It's all theirs.
i have a lot of respect for mortar rounds, and believe they too have certain responsibilities and rights..
That shit is their private property, so they can burn it, share it, hide it underground, whatever. It's all theirs.
I get you on an intellectual tip, but this statement is still somewhat troubling. What comes to mind are the Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban. That was tragic, and yet as the "government" of Afghanistan and thus the "owners," were they really entitled to do with these Buddhas as they wished?
But also troubling is the somewhat flipside that what you own to appreciate isn't really yours to do with what you wish. But then again, art is such lifeblood of our existence as human -- it seems it should be pooh-poohed to take things of such magnitude and lock them away for only those who are deemed worthy. And further, would anyone really care if they had just stayed tight-lipped about it? That is what makes me think it is more of a class issue than anything else.
Such a difficult conundrum. I'm glad to be hearing opinions!
Whenever I look at the picture, I can't help but imagine a giant foot coming down on top of the structure, smashing it to splinters and knocking over some trees in the process, à la Monty Python.
Whereas I look at that photo and think "betcha a Bond villain lives there".
Max Zorin.
Post a Comment
<< Home