And of course like any New York sidewalk, there are tons of people strolling, texting, gossiping,  proposing  marriage, sunning, having lunch, etc.  But unlike your typical New York sidewalk, it’s three stories above the ground, so your whole urban experience is skewed and heightened. You can see out to the river,  as well as the  inner workings of the parking lot on 19^th.  Billboards are not waaay in the air, but in your face,  as are the assortment of star architect buildings popping up to take advantage of the park. Taxis and traffic are down there as is the vista of 14^th Street.  But the guys working construction on all the new building are at  eye level and newly visible as is the wash hanging from lines in the few remaining tenement buildings.  The High Line is New York squared and therefore a wonderful thing.

You gotta go

These new spaces – unlike the corporate garage spaces of Chelsea, are small, intimate and seem almost jerry-rigged. I just finished listening to “Lush Life” by Richard Price – a fabulous listen – highly recommended – in which the Lower East Side forms one of the major characters. Price concentrates on how the neighborhood is in constant flux and gives it a rich inner life. You can really sense that these new chic spaces could have been around the block, and once housed any number of families and businesses. And unlike Chelsea, the galleries are part of the neighborhood. They’re interspersed with all these cute little restaurants and clothing shops and jewelry stores. Also unlike Chelsea, It’s very easy to get distracted with shopping. At least for me it is.

The art is young as well – lots of video, installation, and the kind of painting I’m seeing a lot these days – beautifully painted narratives of a personal fantasy – often, a kind of fantasy related to computer games and comics. So how do you know where to go? Artist Charles Kessler has put together what I think is the most helpful gallery walking guide I’ve seen. I get so confused in the neighborhood because there are no numbered streets and my sense of direction gets whacked and so I’m constantly retracing my steps. And then I get distracted with that shopping – bad me. This guide creates a logical list that saves as much step retracing as possible at- http://www.charleskessler.net/Lower_East_Side_Gallery_Guide/Click_Here_for_Lower_East_Side_Gallery_Guide.html. The ArtCat web site has really up to date listings at http://calendar.artcat.com/allevents/6. And you can go directly to the gallery’s web site to preview.

Now one of the recent developments in the neighborhood, besides the fact that Whole Foods is on the corner of Houston and Bowery, is the opening last year of the New Museum on the Bowery which is a truly fabulous building and is a accurate barometer of the cutting edge international art scene. It is the main anchor of the area, and it’s presence is a major impetus for the galleries. The current exhibition is “Younger than Jesus” – which consist of international artists under 33 – and I have to admit I haven’t seen it yet, but it’s gotten rave reviews. A must see. Some of the other galleries not to be missed are Salon 94, Invisible-Exports, Canada, and Sloan Fine Art. Have fun..

Richard Prince, Four Men Laughing, 1975

His renunciation raises all kinds of questions regarding originality, attribution,  and ultimately value in the art world.

The situation raises soooo many questions.  Primarily, how much control does the artist have over his work, and how much should he have.  Prince made these works of art, received payment, and was happy at the time.

1.       If Prince can say this or that is not part of his oeuvre arbitrarily, what’s to stop him from renouncing the Nurse paintings, or disowning the Joke paintings.  Maybe collectors who buy the work should be required to read in small print that the artist can change his mind if he decides a particular body of work is not part of his “Oeuvre”

2.       Prince often uses imagery from other artists without permission.  Therefore it puzzles me why he cared one way or another if these early pieces were reproduced.

3.       His renouncing the art does not change the fact that he made the art and got paid for the art, and exhibited the art. So perhaps one could you say that I can authenticate the work because I can testify to its originality, but I can’t attribute the work to Richard because he denies attribution.   But then what will happen when he dies – Can an art historian change attribution based on my testimony against his?

4.       Maybe all these questions are academic because Richard really just wants to make a joke.  His work critiques sincerity and exposes emotions as banal and impossibly inauthentic.  His art world persona is purposely elusive and jokey. The e renouncement of 5 years worth of work is totally illogical, and perhaps this is just another example of his penchant for art world trickery.

5.       Prince said in an interview “I’ve never felt that I had to put out work that I actually liked-just because it’s out there doesn’t mean that I have to stand behind it. A lot of it’s experimental, spontaneous. (Karen Rosenberg, May 2, 2005 issue New York Magazine) So maybe he really doesn’t care one way or another about the early pieces.

6.       My favorite quote is in the comments to Ed Winkleman’s blog about this conundrum. David Palmer quips that “someone who bought the early work can’t say they own an artwork by Richard Prince. The work they own is by the artist formerly known as Richard Prince.”

7.       Ha ha ha I really do love that quote – I know its corny

8.       But seriously folks, and this is where the art market comes into play, neither Sotheby’s nor Phillips will take the work for auction because they require that a living artist authenticates the work before they can sell it – So is this the definition of authentication – a living artist must say he made it.  My testimony does not count (until Richard dies I guess) so here’s where the art market comes in – There is no way to value the work if you can’t sell it at auction.  So this whole thing so reminds me of the impossibility of valuing anything these days.  Are my Richard Prince pieces toxic assets?

I just gave an interview on a beginners guide to the contemporary art market and I’m afraid I wasn’t very helpful.  The interviewer kept asking me about value and I kept talking about how necessary art is for the soul.  I think, that’s not what he wanted to hear.  He wanted to hear about how to value art.  Which is a difficult question?  Especially now, when no one knows the value of anything.

So here are some of my ideas about what is and what is not a good value in the contemporary art market.  Please note that this is a very different subject from investing in art.  Art is a crummy monetary investment, even now when prices are getting lower by the minute.  However, a wonderful work of art that you love pays millions of dividends in pleasure and enlightenment.

#1, Please remember that there is a price floor working here.   There is a minimum that a working artist should receive- some reasonable amount for his efforts.  Let’s say he makes 2 paintings a month and the gallery sells them for $3000 each.  Assuming that the gallery does sell 10 paintings a year, the artist receives $15,000 a year.  (Remember the gallery gets 50% of the sales price.) Now let’s also assume that the artist has a master’s degree and student loans to pay off.  Even with a day job, that’s not a lot to live on.  So please, never try to get a good sized painting for less than $3000.  It’s the least you can do.  And try to extrapolate that into works on paper which should sell for $500 – $1000 for an unknown artist.   That is a minimum for a one of a kind, unique piece of art.

#2 – However,   If the work on art you are considering is a giclee or any other sort of poster that is  merely a photomechanical reproduction of some existing painting – or any other kind of photomechanical print,  you should be paying between $100-$500 plus the cost of the frame – never over that.

#3   #2 does not apply to the entire world of original prints, in which the artist himself makes the template (or matrix) from which a lithograph, etching, or silkscreen is printed.  If the artists’ hand  is involved, it is an original,  even if at the same time,  it is made in multiple form.  A reproduction occurs when a photo is taken of a previously existing work of art and printed up.   #2 also does not apply to original photography in which the artist himself is involved.

#3   Always remember that,  although you never invest, you also don’t want to overpay.  You can always negotiate,  especially now.  Kathy’s Law of the Art Market -  Prices never  go down  - Discounts go up.  Just ask.  But don’t please go crazy with the discount, even if you can.  We need our artists and our dealers to be able to stay in business and ride this out.

#4  So what makes one thing worth $30,000 and the other worth $6000.  While both artists will typically have a good record of exhibitions around the country, the $30,000 artist is often included in non-profit spaces and  museum group shows.  Curators are familiar with the work, as are his peers in the art world, and he has been reviewed by major art publications.  He is therefore,   talked about within the art world, and  his work is  ”part of the contemporary art world conversation”.

#4a.  The $6000 artist might be every bit as good as her more expensive peers,  but might have one or more  market aspects going against her.  She might be over 40.  The  art  market keeps looking for the young,  even though many artists don’t begin to hit their stride till their 50′s.  She might be a recluse.  Often wonderful artists are waaaay too shy to expose themselves and their work to the humiliation of being rejected.  They never put themselves out in the market.  This is very common for artists who make art involving their emotional lives as opposed to art about politics, gender and other academically taught subjects.   Or the art might be just considered old-fashioned by the contemporary community.   In any case, these often quite good artists, are not part of the “conversation”

#5   Is the $30,000 artist, still worth $30,000 6 months into the recession?  Time will tell.     During the last big art world blowout in the early 90′s, many artists became literally stuck at their price level and, because of inflexibility, just didn’t sell any art at all.    As I have mentioned before,  artists have an emotional connection to their price level that makes it hard for them to lower prices, but the severity of this crisis might lower some expectations.  It will be interesting to see.

#6  Will the $30,000 artist be worth more in ten years.  Not necessarily at all.  But maybe, you never know.  That artist might turn out to be one of the most important and influential artists of his generation and his career might be rich and varied over his lifetime.  Every stylistic phase he enters might be full of resonance and meaning for collectors and especially,  for other artists.  And the value of that $30,000 might not rise in our lifetime because the art market never leaves the doldrums.  Or , as economists predict, we’re in for a whirlwind of inflation in which case everyone goes to the art market as an inflation hedge and the market – after this temporary swoon, continues it’s upward trajectory.  Your guess is as good as mine.

And thus began the intricate dance between contemporary art and consumerism that has driven great chunks of the art market till everything crashed in October. The art world was flush with an endless supply of stupid money. Newly minted millionaires bought incredibly expensive, excessive, meticulously produced sculptures by artists such as Koons and Murakami and Hirst, each object more brittle and superficial than the last. Luxury brands ruled and the art market was just a more exclusive, more fun and much more expensive brand in the world’s luxury market.  But buying art had two other benefits going for it.  It was cooler to consume art than handbags, because of that old Warholian paradox. If you consume art about consumption, you can be a shopaholic and at the same time be cool enough to know it. But number two, and much more important, is that some idiot got the idea that contemporary art was a new asset class.!!!  The stupid money was not content to invest in CDOs and other junk.  They added contemporary art into their list of toxic assets.

Now luxury branded consumerism is out, outrageous excess is out and even expensive is out.  If contemporary art reflects it’s time and our times are no longer about consumption,  what will be the cultural ethos that contemporary art reflects in the next decade or so?  We’ve been through an anti consumerist phase before, in the 70′s also a time of recession, crummy art markets, and crummy stock markets.  This is when art was either unassuming  and minimal ie Tuttle, LeWitt or huge and minimal, ie. Serra and Tony Smith.   Sol LeWitt sold – not art – but instructions for art – Walter de Maria showed a room of dirt.  An anti-object, anti-consumer, process-oriented stance was typical of the time.  If art is not an object but just an idea, what is there to buy?  But market forces eventually  ruled and all of the conceptualists wound up making objects for sale.

What kind of art will this recession bring? Dense small “authentic” abstraction, more narrative drawing? (paper is cheap), minimal understated Tuttlesque objects?  We’re  definitely back to the handmade, unproduced and manufactured.  And what subject matter  will obsess this next generation  – those who don’t expect an automatic career because they a Columbia MFA?  It will be very interesting to see what moves them once the market is no longer a factor.  I can’t wait.

Also you must realize that 99% of artworks never go up in value and in spite of last year’s art hype, never has.  Art is just like your car which depreciates 50% when you drive it off the lot.  Dealers typically take 40%-50% and so pay the artist 50%.  If you want the dealer to resell the painting, he will still have to make his 50% commission for overhead and thus will give you 50% of the retail.  That is,  if he wants to resell the painting for you.  He will more likely prefer to sell the new work he’s just gotten in by the same artist and be able to apy the artist instead of you.

If,  however, you happen to be among the 1% of collectors who’s art has appreciated, I hope you’ve sold your paintings in the past four years while the art market has bubbled away.  As everyone knows by now, the art market fluctuates along with the rest of the markets.   Art was in the same asset bubble as real estate, and art world denizens have for years been saying “I can’t believe he paid that much for that!!” Just as in real estate, in our heart of hearts, we all knew the prices were a mirage.

But that’s OK,  because, remember, you bought your art because you love it and the change in price won’t affect the art or how you feel about it.  So enjoy!!

I’ve been thinking about the effect the economy will have on the art being shown in Chelsea and am hopful  that we’ll see a lot more painting than we have in the past.    Perhaps the large fabricated sculpture that  has been so prevalent recently, will prove to be too expensive to fabricate,  and huge installations will be unsaleable and that artists will go back to intimacy of the brush and canvas.  By the same token, back in the 70′s -  another time when noone was buying art – the lack of a market led artists to explore ideas instead of objects  and was one of the prime factors in the rise of conceptual art.  Today one can see the anti-market artists at work in the exhibition theanyspacewhatever currently at the Guggenheim in which artists have not created objects,  but are using the museum space for performances, social interactions and other ephemeral time based incidents.  This is all about art meant to be experienced in the round, not looked at on the wall.  And there is nothing there to sell.

One of Lisa’s painter friends remarked to me about my how lively my web site is, and contrasted it to that of her gallery which is much more staid, and typical. So many random people compliment me on my site and I’m proud of how it differs from most galleries. It’s amazing how a web site reflects a personality.  Not only is my web site different from most others – but so is my gallery, and they both reflect my peculiar ideas about what the art business should be.

Most gallery sites don’t list prices.  My dealer friends thinkthat it’s crass to show prices – waaay too commercial.  They also think the client will call if they’re interested and then can be engaged in conversation and even sold something.  I think that listing prices for all to see is not crass but transparent.  And I also think that if prices aren’t listed, clients will assume they can’t afford the work and will never call.  People always tell me my site is easy to use compared to other dealers.  They don’t even realize that listing prices is what makes it that way.

But I want to write today about the importance of context in the selling  of art.  I have this theory that half the people in the world need to have their art presented on a silver platter.  Otherwise it’s not important enough for them.  The other half of the world is like me.  When I look at a piece of art I think, “Would the work still speak to me if I saw it hanging in my gas station?”  That’s my test.  Unlike most of my colleagues,  my definition of good art is that it can stand on its own.  I would love it if I saw it at Sam’s Shell.  It shouldn’t need explanation,  back story, or verbiage. If it has enough visual presence, enough inherent meaning, it will resonate in any context.

But the greater art world sees it differently.   For much of contemporary art, the art is not at all about making an object, but about presenting an idea.  The resulting object is merely the  souvenir of the idea – the saleable leftover of an art thought, art process, performance, etc.  That leftover is anything but self-explanatory and requires reams of verbiage.  The object itself is irrelevant.

And then there is the attitude factor.  Folks always complaint about haughty attitudes of gallery assistants and dealers.  But remember,  Attitude exists because it works.  The art world is so confusing and as I have said many times before – there is no bottom line to the art market – just perception.  Therefore, many collectors who don’t have the confidence in their own taste, need to be intimidated.   Attitude adds credibility.

I have such a hard time being that kind of dealer.  I take the art I exhibit seriously, but not my gallery, which is a lovely space but not at all pristine, or definitely,  not myself.  That just wouldn’t be any fun – and if it’s not fun, why would one want to have a gallery in the first place.