A New Perspective on Contemporary Art

In a previous paper I mentioned Eli Broad and his influence, Eli Broad may not have invented the term “venture phil­an­thropy,” but he has done a lot to give it popu­larity and exhibit the real­istic conse­quences of the perception where the arts are concerned. Accom­panied by a huge amount of snobbish termi­nology, the practice (also known as “high-engagement” or simply “the new” phil­an­thropy) amounts to contrib­utors commanding their own claims to expertise and decision-making authority over the profes­sional staffs to whose training and expe­rience their prede­cessors were generally content and even proud to postpone. The latest events around the new Broad Contem­porary Art Museum, within the public complex of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, have given Broad’s present and potential collab­o­rators a taste of what they are in for. Not, in my opinion, that Broad would offer support for low-key neces­sities of staffing and main­te­nance; far more attractive it must seem to have one’s name on both the visible exterior of a public museum and the collecting trophies inside. Broad can make this happen because he possesses a massive ready for action advantage in the market­place and can therefore hold a large gath­ering of assets as leverage over his nonprofit and public clients if they are willing to follow along. Pretty crafty if you ask me!

Seeing that Eli Broad is worth $5.8 billion has me leaning toward the idea of powerful business having domi­nance over the art world.

In your “Items for question and comment,” you refer to “who owns art (and what, in fact, if anything do they own).” Seeing that Eli Broad is worth $5.8 billion has me leaning toward the idea of powerful business having domi­nance over the art world. As the influence of certain super collectors grows, art requires protective forma­tions alarming enough to introduce some degree of equality into the trans­ac­tions between maker and buyer — such as that enjoyed by Hirst with a well-known Charles Saatchi, or Serra with our famous Eli Broad.

Artists with the popu­larity of let’s say, Jeff Koons amongst many others, certainly must be added to the list-are no doubt obvious excep­tions to the norm in having achieved such relative standing in the market­place on their own account. But the strictly market-making consumers of their art are fairly few in overall number.

Our modern concept of art and artist came about as certain bril­liant talents fought their way free from restric­tions in order to market that very freedom as a quality exceeding in value even some of the most precious mate­rials available. This has been shown in many ways throughout our Chapters. A complex mixture of business and politics combined with talent and an array of mediums has been the deter­mining factor in what move­ments are assembled and why.

To conclude my obser­va­tions and leave you with my overall perspective on Contem­porary Art, I would have to say that yes, Contem­porary art is “the art of today” but the process deter­mining that work is far more complex than a simple defi­n­ition will permit. All the factors above and far more infor­mation could be placed together to achieve an overall expla­nation of what Contem­porary Art is and who owns it for that matter.

As soon as I have come to a conclusion throughout my reading, the times and all reasoning change. Although we could determine what the art of today is, it will be altered just as quickly as the answer was formu­lated. To keep it in today, Contem­porary Art is; “the art of the day.” Tomorrow is a new day in the world of art.