12 Comments
User's avatar
David Roberts's avatar

I loved this, especially the Hirst part. The contemporary art market may end up being the bubble of all bubbles.

Your reaction to the Hirst defense is priceless.

"For anyone with just a passing familiarity of curation, museum requirements, and art market standards, this is a stupendous and brilliant amount of drivel, to the extend that some people might even call it art. The con is exposed, the evidence is visible, yet the conman, as always, reveals a dexterity with the truth that must be admired."

Expand full comment
Charles Schifano's avatar

Thank you very much, David. I appreciate it. Although you might be right, my intuition on the art market is a little different, at least for the most prominent names. I think the very swift but very short downturn in 2008 taught dealers to look at the high end as indistinguishable from other financial assets. So the price change of a work by someone like Warhol is more aligned with the price changes in capital markets, which is probably what he would have wanted.

Expand full comment
David Roberts's avatar

Although Warhol is a good example of an artificial market as the biggest owner of Warhol frequently intervenes to keep prices elevated

Expand full comment
Charles Schifano's avatar

Yes, absolutely. That's a very good point.

Expand full comment
Trilety Wade's avatar

I could read your take on art all day long. And I didn't know that about Hirst and backdating haha but as someone who didn't drop tons of money on his work, i find it as hilarious as it is deceptive. Hope a book of your essays will be out soon.

Expand full comment
Charles Schifano's avatar

Thank you very much for the kind words and the comment, Trilety.

Expand full comment
John P. Weiss's avatar

Your essay includes the words “drivel” and “con” which is how I feel about much of modern art. It’s often about shock or novelty, but what about skill and beauty? The late philosopher Roger Scruton did an excellent three part documentary on beauty and art (YouTube scrubbed it but you can still find it on Vimeo). When I was in Florence staring awe struck at Michelangelo’s David, I didn’t need a curator’s card to explain the work. The skill and beauty were stunning.

Expand full comment
Charles Schifano's avatar

Although I do think that shock and novelty can be effective, or even valuable, I think the flaw comes when those elements are the entire purpose of the art. Just like other tools, they should be in service of something larger. Liking 'shocking' art is similar to liking 'red' paintings in my mind. Red is useful, but what are you painting? Thank you for the comment, John. And I'll have to look for that documentary.

Expand full comment
John P. Weiss's avatar

We’ll put, I agree.

Expand full comment
John Theiss's avatar

I've really appreciated how Museums have stepped up their game with labeling and providing context for the art. But, I do wonder why folks read first. I find it most rewarding to look around and find the pieces I really like, then check the titles and description if available. I then go back to the section, artist or room introduction and learn a lot more. I certainly see how leaving the art as the last thing examined can minimize the experience. On the other hand, for me, more information is better. I'm curious about people, motivation etc. I hope that doesn't mean I need drivel to fully enjoy, not that I care.

Expand full comment
Charles Schifano's avatar

That's understandable and the order certainly makes a difference—thank you for the comment.

Expand full comment
jaidyn luke attard's avatar

I recently read Trent Dalton’s Lola in the Mirror in which every chapter is separated by an exhibition label of the protagonist’s artworks (she is an artist, and the exhibition labels allude to her becoming successful by the end)

Expand full comment