This is like one of those “what do most people know in your industry that others don’t” posts. There have been artworks that operate this way for a century. No one in the art world is surprised by this or thinks it’s weird. - ThreadSky

kevinbuist.com • 90 days ago

This is like one of those “what do most people know in your industry that others don’t” posts. There have been artworks that operate this way for a century. No one in the art world is surprised by this or thinks it’s weird.

Reposted from Frank Kuo

“What you buy when you buy Cattelan’s ‘Comedian’ is not the banana itself, but a certificate of authenticity that grants the owner the permission and authority to reproduce this banana and duct tape on their wall as an original artwork by Maurizio Cattelan”
apnews.com/article/bana...

Comments

stcosmo.bsky.social•90 days ago

And it's arguably older, if the question is one of reproduction and authenticity. Allographic media like music and books are produced at-scale w/o much question to the art object's legitimacy.

bbhilley.bsky.social•90 days ago

I think this is exactly why it's gained so much attention. No one bats an eye when oil on canvas goes for over $100 million. But the use of a banana and tape makes it easier to see the inflation of materials.

bbhilley.bsky.social•90 days ago

But good on them because a lot of people are mistaking headlines and assuming that by eating the banana, Sun destroyed the ($6 mil) artwork, making the gesture seem even more provocative.

mlobelart.bsky.social•90 days ago

Yves Klein's Zone of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility piece dates to 1959, fer chrissakes!! [said in grouchiest tone possible]

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

On the contrary I think it’s deeply weird! Because before there has always been a pretence that there was another purpose than making money. This is just a financial product, for an age in which financial products don’t have to actually exist to have value.

bbhilley.bsky.social•90 days ago

Who are artists/artworks existing outside the market?

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

V few indeed. But that’s not my point!

bbhilley.bsky.social•90 days ago

I understood your point as "art used to be made for more than financial value." Your claim implying only recent artists care about the ability to make a living off their works. So I asked for examples where the market doesn't play a part.

mlobelart.bsky.social•90 days ago

Just to dip in: for me the big shift is not necessarily in how artists view their work, but in buyers/investors; prior to the last few decades (I see the 1973 Sotheby's Scull auction as key here), contemporary art wasn't really seen as a potentially lucrative investment vehicle; now it obviously is

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

Agree. Which for me is more evidence that in this particular case (and thus, to be clear, *not all art or artists!*) the work was conceived for practically no other reason than to become the lucrative investment vehicle.

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

No such implication being intended, only inferred.

videonorth.bsky.social•90 days ago

Why is Comedian "just a financial product?"

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

Conceived for the art market, validated by it, and nothing without it. In one of five editions.

videonorth.bsky.social•90 days ago

firstly, i don't think thats entirely new (see hirst's 'for the love of god,' among others), secondly i don't know if thats true for 'comedian'(idk what cattelan has said abt it but there's other conceptual work going on, phallic symbols, etc), thirdly i dont know if thats a bad thing, inherently.

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

Sure. But the Hirst exists, and - bonus - uniquely!

videonorth.bsky.social•90 days ago

For sure. So what makes 'Comedian' different from a Sol Lewitt wall drawing is... what? That it's nature explicitly dependent on the art market in a way that a Lewitt isn't? In what way is that true?

kevinbuist.com•90 days ago

I’m not sure about that.

bendorgrosvenor.bsky.social•90 days ago

You can’t eat canvas.

robhon.bsky.social•90 days ago

Andy Warhol ate quite well.

kevinbuist.com•90 days ago

In fact, doing a readymade is a deliberately retro gesture, not some new, bizarre horizon that art suddenly pushed into.

timsaccenti.bsky.social•90 days ago

Thought part of the art was actually how cliche the idea was.. very on brand for Catellan

kevinbuist.com•90 days ago

Yeah I think so

imtootiredforthis.bsky.social•90 days ago

Thank you! It is rather funny to see how many people are loudly saying the whole thing is ridiculous, seemingly without realizing that, well, yes, that is rather the intention and everyone involved fully knows it!

tomeiffel.bsky.social•90 days ago

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181?amp=1

kevinbuist.com•90 days ago

Sure, why not.

briankelley2.bsky.social•90 days ago

So it’s like the banana of Theseus?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply