“Collecting” Art on the Cheap
The current issue of Good magazine has an article on art collecting for the–ahem–value-seeking set. Not a Wolfian Master of the Universe or a fifth-generation Vanderbilt? You can still collect great art, writes downtown Manhattan gallery owner Jen Bekman (view article). “If you rely on the art rags, or, say, The New York Times for news about the art world, it’s easy to get the impression that art is for the very few.” But you can start your collection with limited-edition prints that sell on the Web for as little as $20, and originals that cost no more than a few hundred bucks.
Bekman has a point when she writes that when you buy the work of an unknown artist, “it’s nice to know that you’re supporting someone who is probably struggling and dreaming of quitting his or her day job.” She also explores how sites like Tiny Showcase are helping penurious art lovers satiate their need.
But she has a hard sell because she never grapples with the larger issue of why people collect. People collect art because they want to have, organize and catalog a group of special, rarified objects. A Collection means something, not only to them, but to art experts and art society–art snobs, in other words.
Collections like that don’t come cheap. A reasonably-priced collection may satisfy its owner, but it’ll never be a Collection. It’s like comparing a university’s rare book collection to the collection of books from the public library’s 50-cent bin on the shelf in my apartment. Yes, I, too, can collect old books. But they do not an Old-Book Collection make.
So, collect art on the cheap, and love each piece you buy on its merits. Just don’t call yourself an Art Collector.
Hi Maggie… I’m glad you enjoyed the article, although I have to say that I vehemently disagree with how you define a collection. The idea that people buying affordable work shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves collectors smacks of elitism.
Naturally, some people collect for the reasons that you cite, but it’s a very specific set of people who do. (And I would argue that the current vogue of buying art solely based on its perceived value is having a corrosive effect on the art world.)
I sell work to all kinds of collectors for a wide range of reasons. I’m always most satisfied however, when someone adds something to their collection because they love AND they believe that it will have enduring, perhaps increasing, value.
Also, there’s no reason to believe that buying work from emerging artists won’t result in a collection that appeals to art experts. Many of the finest collections have been accumulated by people who had an excellent eye and not an enormous amount of money.
Comment by Jen Bekman — April 30, 2007 @ 10:31 am
I can definitely see where Maggie’s coming from… she’s basically making a distinction between “Art Collectors” with a capital “A” and capital “C”, and the bigger group of people (the hoi polloi perhaps?) who collect art. And it’s an easy enough point to understand.
2 points though:
1) Maggie severely limits the motivations of collectors in the most unsatisfying ways, making them seem like homogenous drones responding purely to economic concerns.
2) she makes the mistaken assumption that all good art (or work from good artists) have to be expensive when she says “Collections like that don’t come cheap”. Of course any good collection should contain pieces whose monetary value is bolstered by demand in the market. But one should always keep in mind the fact that prices for each artist’s work will take time to rise… and if one’s lucky, a small-c-collector might hit the jackpot by acquiring pieces from a potentially well-known artist while they are still affordable.
Comment by Ian — May 12, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
I think that the term art collector can be applied to people who purchase cheaper emerging artworks just as much as those spending millions.
http://www.artmarketblog.com
Comment by Nicholas Forrest — May 20, 2007 @ 10:12 pm