£65 million sculpture sold in London

Well I guess we all know what this guy will run out with, if his house ever catches fire.
 
Sam have you heard of this?

LONDON.- In October 2008, the Saatchi Gallery re-opened in the 70,000 sq. ft Duke of York’s HQ building on King’s Road in the heart of London. With free admission to all shows, the Saatchi Gallery aims to bring contemporary art to the widest audience possible. Its first three shows, "The Revolution Continues: New Art from China", "Unveiled: New Art from the Middle East" and "Abstract America: New Painting and Sculpture", have attracted over one million visitors to date.

On 29 January the Saatchi Gallery will open with The Empire Strikes Back: Indian Art Today, an exhibition of 26 artists from the world’s largest democracy. Despite homegrown contemporary art being under represented in public museums in India, its commercial and international success has allowed small ventures to grow into thriving art galleries in Mumbai, Delhi and Bangalore, with outposts opening in Europe and the US. The rapid flourishing of this art scene on one hand and the recent economic downturn on the other have prompted critical questions about Indian culture and globalization in a country torn between a proudly independent mindset and a dependence on global consumption.

Against this backdrop, contemporary Indian artists are making a diverse range of work, which responds to the complexities of 21st-century India. The Raj and its legacy, the failure of Gandhi’s and Nehru’s hopes for a harmonious secular India, remain rich subjects for many of the artists, whilst others are engaging with the country’s incredible urban expansion, its slums – some of the biggest in Asia – and issues around migration.

"The Empire Strikes Back" will bring together works by established and emerging artists, most of whom have never been shown in the UK before. These include Jaishri Abichandani, Mansoor Ali, Kriti Arora, Huma Bhabha, Ajit Chauhan, Shezad Dawood, Atul Dodiya, Chitra Ganesh, Probir Gupta, Sakshi Gupta, Subodh Gupta, Tushar Joag, Jitish Kallat, Reena Saini Kallat, Bharti Kher, Rajan Krishnan, Huma Mulji, Pushpamala N, Yamini Nayar, Justin Ponmany, Rashid Rana, TV Santhosh, Schandra Singh, Tallur L.N, Hema Upadhyay, T Venkanna.

I'm hearing some really wonderful responses from this exhibit?
 
Yeah I know, I was kidding. Its just amazing to me what people are willing to spend on.

I'm hearing some really wonderful responses from this exhibit?
Click to expand...

It must be good. I'm not that educated about art, I just know what I like.
 
S.A.M. said:
It must be good. I'm not that educated about art, I just know what I like.
Click to expand...

That's too bad. It represents a strong shift in cultural and social presentations. I think the art world will be seeing the prevalence of some of those names for a long time.
 
I would hazard that many of these artists are based out of India, since I frequently haunt Jehangir Art Gallery and don't recall these names :)

I think Abhichandani is from NY
 
wsionynw said:
It is very nice, but £65 million?!!?
Click to expand...
Giacometti died young (65), was a leader in the Surrealist movement, and had a habit of destroying older pieces that he was dissatisfied with. So there isn't much of his art available. Even his prints were frequently only produced in lots of 30, and sculptures, of course, are one of a kind.

This art is both rare and important, and rare important art commands high prices.
S.A.M. said:
Well I guess we all know what this guy will run out with, if his house ever catches fire.
Click to expand...
Lucysnow said:
Not really. I mean that's why they insure pieces with these price tags.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? I'm sure he has a room in his house with steel walls and its own halon (gas, not water) fire extingushing system. Besides, it's bronze, so it could withstand a little abuse.

To look at this as a dollar-valued asset is to miss the point. It is an important, irreplaceable work of art. Sure, nouveau-riche drug lords, pop stars and Third World despots may be oafs who accumulate this stuff just to show off, but most people who collect serious art are serious collectors who recognize their role in preserving artifacts of human culture.
S.A.M. said:
I would hazard that many of these artists are based out of India, since I frequently haunt Jehangir Art Gallery and don't recall these names. I think Abhichandani is from NY
Click to expand...
Artists often transcend borders and assimilate into the larger community of artists. They collect energy, techniques, inspiration and validation from artists with different backgrounds, while staying firmly in touch with their own muse, who is largely speaking from the Collective Unconscious of their own culture.

We have a few pieces by Mikhail Chemiakin, a Russian artist who was persecuted by the Communist government: the whole experience including being committed to a mental hospital and seeing all of his mentors and supporters lose their jobs. He was finally exiled and has lived in the West for three decades. His work, while classified as "surreal grotesque," is still unmistakably inspired by a Russian muse and draws on the rich Collective Unconscious of the Russian people, from the days of the Czars to the USSR. (His muse missed out on Perestroika.)
 
To look at this as a dollar-valued asset is to miss the point. It is an important, irreplaceable work of art.
Click to expand...

Art is subjective. Its the eye of the beholder that makes it valuable
 
S.A.M. said:
Art is subjective. Its the eye of the beholder that makes it valuable
Click to expand...
That may be a valid statement in the narrow context of microeconomics, but it falls flat in the broader context of a society's culture.

Not "the beholder," singular. It is the judgment of the entire community, especially the segment of the community that takes art seriously and acts collectively as its curators. Those other collectors at the auction were not bidding up the price of this piece because it would add to the value of their portfolio--collectibles are a notoriously shaky investment whose dollar value plummets during hard times. They wanted it because of what it is.

Many of the world's most assiduous art collectors do not even bequeath that part of their estate to their heirs. I have been to the homes of John Paul Getty (petroleum), Henry Huntington (railroads) and Marjorie Merriweather-Post (banking and food), whose estates were turned into museums when they died and their collections are now open to the public.

I continue to have trouble impressing on you the tremendous importance of the Collective Unconscious in the evolution and preservation of culture. Considering that you identify your own society as one with a much greater sense of group identity than mine--and I don't disagree--this is surprising.
 
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker said:
That may be a valid statement in the narrow context of microeconomics, but it falls flat in the broader context of a society's culture.

Not "the beholder," singular. It is the judgment of the entire community, especially the segment of the community that takes art seriously and acts collectively as its curators.

I continue to have trouble impressing on you the tremendous importance of the Collective Unconscious in the evolution and preservation of culture. Considering that you identify your own society as one with a much greater sense of group identity than mine--and I don't disagree--this is surprising.
Click to expand...

Do you know why artists need patrons and why so many artists never make any money from their own art in their own lifetimes?
 
S.A.M. said:
Do you know why artists need patrons . . . .
Click to expand...
Because art is a luxury to most people. Of all the arts, technology has made music widely available so many talented musicians can make a living at it, but that's not true of the visual arts like portraiture and sculpture. More artists actually do make a living than they would have 100 years ago, but still those who do not do county-fair art often are not recognized by the general population until the recognition filters down from the cognoscenti.

Artists who churn out minor works day after day can sell them for $50 and make a living, and there are plenty of people who will pay $50 for a decent painting. But the artists who labor for months on one canvas need the lithographs to bring in several thousand dollars each, and that greatly limits their market: to people who can simply afford to spend that much money on a piece of art, and who recognize theirs as worth it.
. . . . and why so many artists never make any money from their own art in their own lifetimes?
Click to expand...
You're still slow in understanding the Collective Unconscious. It grows slowly. By their nature artists pick up on trends and other motifs in their society before everyone else. The other people may not understand what they're referring to until after they die.

A pianst I know is campaigning to bring to light the works of a Catalonian composer from nearly a century ago. In his day no one could relate to his music. Today, people are saying, "Oh yeah, I see. That's great stuff. Thanks for rescuing it from obscurity!" My friend will make the money from his recordings and performances, but the dead composer will not. (Not a lot of money of course, we're talking about "classical" music.)
 
Yeah it takes a lot of work to create the collective conscious.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
This art is both rare and important, and rare important art commands high prices.Are you kidding? I'm sure he has a room in his house with steel walls and its own halon (gas, not water) fire extingushing system. Besides, it's bronze, so it could withstand a little abuse.

To look at this as a dollar-valued asset is to miss the point. It is an important, irreplaceable work of art..)
Click to expand...

Indeed, although I'm not sure if the buyer has been identified. I like to hope that it's a rich art lover that will display it for the public to enjoy.
What is more likely is that it has been purchased by a bank somewhere that intends to lock it in a vault and sell it to another bank in 20 years or so.

Sigh.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
I continue to have trouble impressing on you the tremendous importance of the Collective Unconscious in the evolution and preservation of culture.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should try using a hammer. :eek:

Funny that, being an individual in a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top